EFTA00721968.pdf
dataset_9 pdf 131.0 KB • Feb 3, 2026 • 2 pages
Law Offices
KREUSLER-WALSH, COMPIAM & VARGAS, P.A.
Suite 503, Flagler Center
501 South Flagler Drive
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Jane fCreusler-Walsh Telephone
Barbara J. Compiani Facsimile
Rebecca Mercier Vargas
Board Certified Appellate Lawyers
MEMORANDUM
TO: Robert Critton
FROM: Jane Kreusler-Walsh cr S
DATE: June 25, 2009
RE: Epstein: Motion to Stay
You asked me to provide you with a brief summary of the law regarding
stays pending appeal. Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.310(a) allows the
trial court to stay an order pending appeal. Whether to grant a stay is discretionary
with the trial court. See Pabian v. Pabian 469 So. 2d 189, 191 (Fla. 4th DCA
1985) ("[T]he trial court has considerable latitude in controlling the circumstances
under which the proceedings may be stayed pending review."). Factors courts
consider in deciding whether to grant a stay pending appellate proceedings include:
the likelihood of success on the merits, the likelihood of harm if no stay is granted,
and the remedial quality of any such harm. See State ex rel. Price v. McCord, 380
So. 2d 1037, 1038 n.3 (Fla. 1980); Perez v. Perez, 769 So. 2d 389, 391 n.4 (Fla. 3d
DCA 1999)• see also Mitchell v. State, 911 So. 2d 1211, 1219 (Fla. 2005)
EFTA00721968
("Ordinarily, there are two principal considerations that courts must take into
account when deciding whether to vacate a stay: the likelihood of irreparable harm
if the stay is not granted and the likelihood of success on the merits by the entity
seeking to maintain the stay.").
You should argue that it is likely the appellate court will quash the order.
There is no prejudice from granting a stay, while there is irremediable harm to
Epstein from a denial.
2
EFTA00721969
Entities
0 total entities mentioned
No entities found in this document
Document Metadata
- Document ID
- 3cf69c5b-cf1d-47ea-be4e-83a14d24f13c
- Storage Key
- dataset_9/EFTA00721968.pdf
- Content Hash
- 4a7e98e59a9a3e9da268f2144afc2e45
- Created
- Feb 3, 2026