Vargas v. Salazar & Son's Group LLC et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
CONCEPCION VARGAS
Plaintiff,
v.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-2 4267
ALEJANDRO SALAZAR, RAMON
SALAZAR, and SALAZAR & SON'S
GROUP LLC-MARIA RITA'S
TEX-MEX KITCHEN,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION .AND ORDER
Concepcion Vargas ("Plaintiff") , who is appearing pro se,
brought this action against Alejandro Salazar, Ramon Salazar, and
Salazar & Son's Group LLC-Maria Rita's Tex-Mex Kitchen
(collectively, "Defendants") in the 157th District Court of Harris
County, Texas on October 16, 2023. 1 The action was removed to this
court on November 10, 2023.2 On July 28, 2025, the district court
adopted Magistrate Judge Christina A. Bryan recommendation that the
Defendants be granted summary judgment on all claims but one. 3 On
1Plaintiff's Original Pet ion and Application for Temporary
Injunction, Exhibit 2 to Defendants' Notice of Removal, Docket
Entry No. 1-2, pp. 3-4. For the purposes of identification, all
page numbers refer to the pagination imprinted at the top of the
page by the court's Electronic Case Filing System.
2Defendants' Notice of Removal, Docket Entry No. 1.
3Memorandum and Recommendation, Docket Entry No. 103, pp. 22-
23; Order Adopting Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and
(continued...)
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
July 14, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:23-cv-04267 Document 168 Filed 07/14/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

April 17, 2026, after holding a bench trial on Plaintiff's
remaining claim against Defendants, the court entered a Final
Judgment dismissing this action with prejudice and taxing costs
against Plaintiff. 4 On May 1, 2026, Defendants filed a of
Costs. 5 On May 28, 2026, the court entered an order denying
Plaintiff's objections to the Bill of Costs, concluding that
"Plainti
exercise
has [not] provided any cogent reason for the court to
discretion to deny or reduce the" Bill of Costs. 6
Pending before the court is Plainti 's Motion to_ Stay
Enforcement and Collection of Taxed Costs Pending Appeal ("Motion
to Stay") (Docket Entry No. 165). In their response, Defendants
argue that Plaintiff has not met her burden of demonstrating that
a stay warranted. 7
When determining whether to grant a pending appeal, "a
court considers four factors: '(1) whether the stay applicant has
made a strong showing that [s] he is likely to succeed on the
merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured
absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially
3 ( •••continued)
Recommendation, Docket Entry No. 104, p. 1.
4 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Docket Entry No.
152, p. 8; Final Judgment, Docket Entry No. 153, p. 2.
5Bill of Costs, Docket Entry No. 158, p. 1.
6Order, Docket Entry No. 162, p. 2.
7Defendants' Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to
Stay Enforcement and Collection of Taxed Costs Pending Appeal,
Docket Entry No. 166, p. 1.
-2-
Case 4:23-cv-04267 Document 168 Filed 07/14/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4)
where the public interest lies.' 11 Nken v. Holder, 129 S. Ct. 1749,
1756 (2009) (quoting Hilton y. Braunskill, 107 S. Ct. 2113, 2119
(1987)). The movant bears the burden of showing that a stay
pending appeal is warranted. Id. at 1761. "Ordinarily a bond must
be posted to stay execution of a judgment pending appeal."
Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. v. NL Industries, Civil Action
Nos. H-05-4160, H-06-3504, 2008 WL 2787247, at *l (S.D. Tex. Jul.
16, 2008).
Plaintiff has failed to meet her burden demonstrating that
a stay is warranted. First, Plaintiff makes no showing that she is
likely to succeed on appeal. Plaintiff merely asserts that "[i]f
[she] prevails on appeal, the judgment may be reversed, vacated,
modified, or remanded for further proceedings."8 Second, Plaintiff
has not demonstrated irreparable harm. Although Plaintiff states
that she is "proceeding pro se and has limited financial
resources,n these assertions without more are not sufficient to
constitute irreparable harm. Gibson, Inc. y. Armadillo
Distribution Enterprises, Inc., Civil Action No. 4:19-Cv-358, 2025
WL 2698115, at *5 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 22, 2025) ("Irreparable harm
generally exists if the injury cannot be undone through monetary
relief. 11) ( internal quotations omitted). Moreover, the court
already ected this argument in its order denying Plaintiff's
8Motion to Stay, Docket Entry No. 165, p. 1.
-3-
Case 4:23-cv-04267 Document 168 Filed 07/14/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

objections to the Bill of Costs. 9 Finally, Plaintiff has not
established that the issuance of a stay will not substantially
injure Defendants or that the public interest favors a stay.
Although aintiff argues that "Defendants will suffer little or no
prejudice from a temporary stay because the amount at sue is
modest" and that "[t]he interests of judicial economy and fairness
favor maintaining the status quo, "10 the court finds these bare
assertions unpersuasive.
Accordingly, aintiff's Motion to Stay Enforcement and
Collection of Taxed Costs Pending Appeal (Docket Entry No. 165) is
DENIED.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 14th day of July, 2026.
SIM LAKE
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
9Order, Docket Entry No. 162, p. 2.
10Motion to Stay, Docket Entry No. 165, p. 2.
-4-
Case 4:23-cv-04267 Document 168 Filed 07/14/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4