The opinion of the court was delivered by: Colleen Kollar-kotelly, United States District Judge
Petitioner Julie K. McCammon brought the above-captioned miscellaneous action as a Petition to Quash five Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") summons issued to third-party recordkeepers for information related to her financial activities. This Court subsequently granted the United States' Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and dismissed the miscellaneous case in its entirety. Petitioner also filed a Motion for reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), which the Court denied. Petitioner then filed the current Motion to Stay Pending Appeal, which is opposed by the United States. Upon review of the Parties' submissions, history of the case, relevant case law and statutory authority, the Court shall DENY Petitioner's  Motion to Stay Pending Appeal, for the reasons set forth below.
The instant case involves five third-party IRS summons issued to (1) shopbop.com, (2) QVC, (3) WesBanco, (4) Huntington Banks, and (5) Chase Bank NA (the "Subpoenas"). The Subpoenas seek records of purchases made under accounts held in Petitioner's name or in the name of an alias, as well as Petitioner's financial records. See Attachments to Petition, Docket No. . On May 12, 2008, Petitioner filed a Petition to Quash the Subpoenas. See generally Petition to Quash, Docket No. .*fn1 On June 4, 2008, the United States moved to dismiss the Petition to Quash for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, see Resp.'s MTD, Docket No. , arguing that petitions to quash must be filed in the judicial districts in which the summoned parties are located, and that the relevant third-party recordkeepers in this case reside outside of the District of Columbia, see Resp.'s Response at 1-2, Docket No. . The Court agreed with the United States and granted the Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 08/04/08 Order, Docket No. , ("August 4, 2008 Order"). The instant case was therefore dismissed in its entirety. Id. Petitioner subsequently filed a Motion  for Rehearing and Motion for Rehearing En Banc, which the Court treated as a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 59(e). See 08/22/08 Order, Docket No. , ("August 22, 2008 Order"). The Court denied Petitioner's Motion, finding that Petitioner had not met the standard for reconsideration and offered the Court no reason to reconsider the August 4, 2008 Order. Id. Accordingly, the Court never reached the merits of Petitioner's Petition to Quash.
Petitioner subsequently filed a Motion to Stay Pending Appeal pursuant to Rule 62, which is now pending before the Court. Docket No. , ("Pet.'s Mot."). Petitioner generally argues that she would suffer irreparable harm if the subpoenas were enforced prior to her appeal, thereby rendering the appeal moot. Pet.'s Mot. at 2. She further contends that the United States would not be harmed or prejudiced by a stay, and that she is likely to prevail on the merits of the appeal. Id. The United States filed an Opposition to Petitioner's Motion for Stay Pending Appeal. Docket No. , ("Resp.' Opp'n"). Although the time for filing a Reply has passed, Petitioner did not file any such response with the Court. Accordingly, Petitioner's Motion for Stay Pending Appeal is now ripe for review.*fn2
As an initial matter, the Court notes that there is a disconnect between Petitioner's arguments and her requested relief. Although Petitioner's Motion requests a "stay of proceeding[s] [sic] pending appeal," Pet.'s Mot. at 1, Petitioner's arguments focus almost entirely on the need to secure relief from the enforcement of the subpoenas pending appeal, see generally Pet.'s Mot. As explained above, the Court dismissed the instant case for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See August 4, 2008 Order; August 22, 2008 Order. The Court thus never reached the merits of or ruled on the Petitioner's Petition to Quash, and certainly did not order the subpoenas enforced. See id. It is therefore entirely unclear to the Court how a stay of the proceedings, in which the Court ordered the instant lawsuit dismissed for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, would address Petitioner's concerns.
Rather, it appears that Petitioner in actuality seeks to have the Court issue an injunction prohibiting the enforcement of the subpoenas pending appeal. But, having already determined that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the Petitioner's Petition to Quash, the Court also lacks the authority to provide injunctive relief to Petitioner pending appeal. See Barwood, Inc. v. District of Columbia, 202 F.3d 290, 294-95 (D.C. Cir. 2000) ("But just as a Court without jurisdiction over an underlying case has no jurisdiction to issue a subpoena (unless issued in aid of determining jurisdiction), or to enforce it by civil contempt, so too a court without jurisdiction over an underling case cannot issue an [injunction], or enforce it by civil contempt.") (internal citations omitted). Moreover, even if the Court had jurisdiction to issue an injunction, motions for an injunction pending appeal are governed by the same standard as motions for stay pending appeal-a standard that, as discussed below, counsels against granting either a stay or injunction pending appeal in the case at hand.*fn3
Although Petitioner indicates that subsection (a) of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62 serves as the basis for her request for a stay, the Court nonetheless determines that subsection (c) of Rule 62 is the only subsection that arguably applies to Petitioner's Motion for Stay Pending Appeal.*fn4 The Court shall therefore presume that Petitioner intends to proceed under Rule 62(c), which provides, in pertinent part: "While an appeal is pending from an interlocutory order or final judgment that grants, dissolves, or denies an injunction, the court may suspend, modify, restore or grant an injunction on terms for bond or other terms that secure the opposing party's rights." FED. R. CIV. P. 62(c).
A party who moves for a stay or injunction pending appeal bears the burden of showing the balance of four factors weigh in favor of the stay/injunction: (1) the likelihood that the party will prevail on the merits of the appeal; (2) the likelihood that the party will be irreparably harmed absent a stay; (3) the prospect that others will be harmed if the court grants the stay; and (4) the public interest in granting a stay. United States v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 449 F. Supp. 2d 988, 990 (D.D.C. 2006) (delineating factors to be considered in determining whether stay pending appeal is warranted) (citing Cuomo v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 772 F.2d 972, 974 (D.C. Cir. 1985); Resolution Trust Corp. v. Burke, 874 F. Supp. 23, 25 (D.D.C. 1995) (evaluating motion to stay enforcement of subpoenas pending appeal under same four factor test). A party does not necessarily have to make a strong showing with respect to the first factor (likelihood of success on the merits) if a strong showing is made as to the second factor (likelihood of irreparable harm). Cuomo, 772 F.2d at 973 ("[p]robability of success is inversely proportional to the degree of irreparable injury evidenced. A stay may be granted with either a high probability of success and some injury, or vice versa"). "However, it must be remembered that granting a stay pending appeal is 'always an extraordinary remedy, and that the moving party carries a heavy burden to demonstrate that the stay is warranted." Philip Morris USA, Inc., 449 F. Supp. 2d at 990 (internal citations omitted). "In exercising its discretion whether to grant the stay, and in considering the factors set forth in the case law, the Court must ultimately balance all equities." Id.
Having now determined the appropriate legal standards in this case, the difficult part of the Court's analysis is done. Given Petitioner's failure to provide any legal or factual support whatsoever for her claim that she is entitled to either a stay or injunction pending appeal pursuant to Rule 62(c), the Court easily concludes that Petitioner has not met her "heavy burden" of demonstrating that the "extraordinary remedy" of a stay or injunction pending appeal is warranted.
A. Petitioner's Likelihood Of Prevailing On The Merits Of The Appeal
Petitioner has not shown that she is likely to prevail on the merits of the appeal. The weight of authority demonstrates that petitions to quash summonses issued to third-party recordkeepers must be filed in the judicial districts in which the summoned parties are located. See August 4, 2008 Order at 5 (citing cases). Where, as here, the petition to quash is filed in a judicial district in which none of the third-party recordkeepers are located, the precedent makes clear that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the petition to quash. Petitioner's Motion is entirely devoid of any case law supporting her claim that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the underlying case. See generally Pet.'s Mot. Moreover, to the extent Petitioner continues to argue that 26 U.S.C. § 7609(h) refers to personal jurisdiction, rather than subject matter jurisdiction, Petitioner's sole reliance on dicta from a single, unreported case is insufficient to overcome the weight of the authority to the contrary. See Pet.'s Mot. at 4 (citing Skul v. United States, No. 5:07 CV 0601, 2007 WL 1144799 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 16, 2007)). Although Petitioner avers that she "still believes that the best jurisdiction to be heard is in the District of Columbia where she has already retained an attorney," see Pet.'s Mot. at 4, her own personal belief as to the convenience of a particular venue is ...