What is a Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay?

Useful Rulings on Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay

Recent Rulings on Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay

1-25 of 10000 results

THE CITIES OF DUARTE VS STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD AND CITY OF GARDENA VS REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD

Stay of Enforcement of Court’s Judgment The Court is inclined to stay enforcement of its judgment pending appeal. The Court is persuaded that the status quo should be maintained pending appeal so that any different relief granted by the Court of Appeal is not rendered illusory, and to avoid interfering with those parts of the Permit which may have been successfully implemented by some cities affected by the Permit.

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2021

LOREN NAUTA V. SUSAN MURPHY

In the interim, Nauta filed a “Supplemental Opposition to Motion for a Change of Venue and Notice of a Stay,” on December 23, 2019, and again on December 30, 2019. The supplemental opposition states the conservatee, Loren Nauta, has instituted bankruptcy proceedings requiring a stay of this action. The second Supplemental Opposition included a “Notice of Bankruptcy Case Filing.” Currently before the Court is Murphy’s Motion to Dismiss, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 399(a).

  • Hearing

    Jul 22, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

On August 16, 2017, the “Order Granting Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay Under 11 U.S.C. § 362” was entered by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in case styled In re: Dispatch Transportation, LLC, Case No. 6:16-bk-17768-MH. On March 16, 2018, Dispatch’s default was entered. A Trial Setting Conference is set for May 19, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Jul 20, 2020

STEPHEN J. BROWN VS AMBITIOUS PRODUCTIONS, INC., ET AL.

The Parties should be prepared to address their intentions with respect to mediation and the stay on discovery. The moving party is ordered to provide notice of this order and file proof of service of such. DATED: July 10, 2020 ___________________________ Elaine Lu Judge of the Superior Court

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

A. CHARLES WILSON VS CENTURY CITY MEDICAL PLAZA, L.P., ET AL.

Defendant’s arguments are more appropriate for a motion to compel arbitration, where the Court may adequately determine the issues before it by resort to evidence. If Defendant believes that this action should be dismissed because of Plaintiff’s failure to arbitrate, Defendant may file a motion to compel arbitration. Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s demurrer based on a failure to provide a notice of right to arbitration is OVERRULED.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

TEHILA KOHANBASH VS FCA US LLC, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CHRYSLER GROUP LLC), A DELAWARE CORPORATION,, ET AL.

There is nothing unreasonable on its face about, for example, 3.4 hours spent inspecting windows, doors, and articles, or 1.2 hours spent researching a motion to compel arbitration filed by Defendants. After looking at whether the case was overstaffed, how much time was spent on the claim, and whether the hours were reasonably expended, the Court finds the fees claimed as reasonable. (Morris v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

BRYANT VS. ADVANCED M.P. TECHNOLOGY, LLC

Motion to Compel Arbitration

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

BRYANT VS. ADVANCED M.P. TECHNOLOGY, LLC

Motion to Compel Arbitration. Moving Party: Defendants Advanced M.P. Technology, LLC; Homayoun Shorooghi, Eric Bettencourt and Sam Tombs. Responding Party: Plaintiff Michael Bryant. Ruling: Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED as to the First through Ninth Causes of Action. This action is stayed as to those Causes of Action. The Motion to Compel Arbitration is DENIED as to the Tenth and Eleventh causes of action for intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic relations.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

BELTRAN VS. TOWNSHIP RETAIL

HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION & STAY PROCEEDINGS FILED BY TOWNSHIP RETAIL SERVICES, INC. * TENTATIVE RULING: * Withdrawn, based on the order pursuant to stipulation entered on June 18, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

BEN ZAKARYA, ET AL. VS TRUMAN SYSTEM, LLC, ET AL.

On December 2, 2019, Plaintiffs filed two motions, a motion for leave to amend (motion to relief; CCP 473), and a motion for a stay of proceedings (CCP 404.5). On March 16, 2020, Shenassa filed an opposition. On April 13, 2020, Shin filed a reply. Discussion First, the Court assumes that Plaintiffs do not want to actually move for leave to amend or move for a stay of proceedings. The Court understands these two motions as a motion for relief from the voluntary dismissals filed on October 8, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

CESAR ROMERO ET AL VS FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY ET AL

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ motion for stay of this Court’s January 30, 2020 order is DENIED. Conclusion Plaintiffs’ motion for stay of the January 30, 2020 Order is DENIED. The parties are strongly encouraged to attend all scheduled hearings by telephone or CourtCall. All social distancing protocols will be observed at the Courthouse and in the courtrooms. Moving party to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

EVA E HERNANDEZ VS SUPER CALIDAD AUTO SALES, INC., ET AL.

MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY PROCEEDINGS (CCP §§ 1281.2, et seq.; 638) TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff Eva E. Hernandez’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE AUTOMBOILE CLUB VS RONALD PODELL

Plaintiff also argues that Defendant’s failure to provide responses is not the result of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic because Defendant’s inaction and delay precede the Stay at Home Orders that went into effect on March 19, 2020. (Production Reply, p. 2:16-18.) Specifically, because Plaintiff propounded the two sets of discovery requests on January 27, 2020, responses were due no later than March 2, 2020, including an extra five days for service by mail pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1013.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ISHAN N. SHAMAAN VS SAAD Y. COTTA

Also, a discretionary bond or undertaking pursuant to CCP §917.9 is not appropriate—Defendant fails to demonstrate the likelihood of damages he may sustain by reason of the stay. The Motion is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

DISCUSSION: Motion To Compel Arbitration Plaintiff’s Evidentiary Objections There is no authority holding that the Court must rule on an evidentiary objection made in connection with a motion other than a motion for summary judgment or an anti-SLAPP motion.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

WEST COAST LENDING, INC. VS. TWINROCK PARTNERS, LLC

Moving parties’ motion to stay the action is DENIED. “When an action is brought in a court of this state involving the same parties and the same subject matter as an action already pending in a court of another jurisdiction, a stay of the California proceedings is not a matter of right, but within the sound discretion of the trial court.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

HESPER NATALE, ET AL V. SKY RIVER, INC., ET AL

The Court did not grant a request to stay Natale’s claims at that time, finding the Plaintiffs failed to establish that there was a possibility of conflicting rulings on common issues of law and fact as between Smart and Schneeberger on the one hand, and Natale on the other. Smart was dismissed from the cross-action on January 24, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

NARDONE VS. ITAL PIZZA, INC.

The stay of Plaintiff’s breach of employment contract cause of action also will remain in effect until it is arbitrated after trial of the other non-arbitrable claims. Plaintiff Sandro Nardone shall give notice.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

SALVATION INVESTMENT, LLC VS. MO MURRAYFIELD, LLC

Moving parties’ motion to stay the action is DENIED. “When an action is brought in a court of this state involving the same parties and the same subject matter as an action already pending in a court of another jurisdiction, a stay of the California proceedings is not a matter of right, but within the sound discretion of the trial court.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

LONG BONETTI OFFICE, LLC V. HAMISH MARSHALL

Defendants rely on this provision to argue that the motion to compel arbitration should be heard before all other motions. Section 1281.4 does not automatically stay a proceeding pending a hearing on the motion to compel arbitration. And while Defendants have filed a contemporaneous motion to stay the proceedings, they have not cited to any authority which limits the Court’s inherent power under section 128(a)(5) to control the judicial proceeding before it.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

ANTHONY WRIGHT, ET AL. VS ARABIAN ZAID MORGAN & TERRI SHEILAND MORGAN REVOCABLE TRUST

19STCV34171 ANTHONY WRIGHT vs ARABIAN ZAID MORGAN & TERRI SHEILAND MORGAN REVOCABLE TRUST Defendants Arabian Zaid Morgan and Terri Sheilan Morgan’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Request to Stay TENTATIVE RULING: The motion to compel arbitration and for a stay is GRANTED. The court sets a Post Arbitration Status Conference on January 6, 2021 at 8:30 a.m. Moving party to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

JD FINANCIAL GROUP LTD., A UNITED KINGDOM CORPORATION VS RENAISSANCE CAPITAL GROUP, LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED LIABITITY COMPANY, ET AL.

.: 20STCV05548 Hearing Date: July 1, 2020 Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED. Any limitations on statutorily imposed remedies, including punitive damages, are severed from the agreement. On February 11, 2020, Plaintiff JD Financial Group LTD filed suit against Renaissance Capital Group, LLC (RCP) and Robert A.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

PREFERRED BANK VS PREVENTION, LLC

Foreclosure Stay Defendant opposes on two grounds: the above-discussed evidentiary objections to the Li Declaration, and the COVID-19 related emergency orders precluding foreclosure actions on real property. Defendant argues that Emergency Rule 2 applies and stays this action. Emergency Rule 2 states: Emergency rule 2.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ZULEYMA J. JOHNSON VS BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

On May 21, 2020, Defendants filed the instant Motion to Compel Arbitration.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

CHRIS SANCHEZ, ET AL. VS JACEM HEALTHY PRODUCTS INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Procedural Considerations Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1330: “A petition to compel arbitration or to stay proceedings pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 1281.2 and 1281.4 must state, in addition to other required allegations, the provisions of the written agreement and the paragraph that provides for arbitration. The provisions must be stated verbatim or a copy must be physically or electronically attached to the petition and incorporated by reference.” (Cal.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 400     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.