Code of Civil Procedure, section 1281.4 provides that “[i]f a court of competent jurisdiction, whether in this State or not, has ordered arbitration of a controversy which is an issue involved in an action or proceeding pending before a court of this State, the court in which such action or proceeding is pending shall, upon motion of a party to such action or proceeding, stay the action or proceeding until an arbitration is had in accordance with the order to arbitrate or until such earlier time as the court specifies.” Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.4; Cardiff Equities, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1541, 1551.
A “controversy” for purposes of this section is “any question arising between parties to an agreement whether such question is one of law or of fact or both.” Code Civ. Proc., §1280(c). “A controversy can be a single question of law or fact, and a stay shall be issued upon proper motion if the court has ordered arbitration of a controversy that is also an issue involved in an action or proceeding pending before it. Thus, a single overlapping issue is sufficient to require imposition of a stay.” Cardiff Equities, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1551.
The purpose of section 1281.4 is to protect the jurisdiction of the arbitrator by preserving the status quo until the arbitration is resolved. MKJA, Inc. v. 123 Fit Franchising, LLC (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 643, 660. Preserving the arbitrator’s jurisdiction through a stay of related litigation is essential to the enforceability of an arbitration agreement because, otherwise, a party could simply litigate claims that it agreed to arbitrate. MKJA, Inc. v. 123 Fit Franchising, LLC (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 643, 660. “In the absence of a stay, the continuation of the proceedings in the trial court disrupts the arbitration proceedings and can render them ineffective.” Heritage Provider Network, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1146, 1152.
For matters that have been submitted to arbitration, therefore, a court has only vestigial jurisdiction and it may not lift the stay when it would interfere with the jurisdiction of the arbitrator. Pinela v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 227, 238. The policy underlying the breadth of the stay provision in section 1281.4 is generally cited as protecting the jurisdiction of the arbitrator by preserving the status quo until arbitration is resolved, so that proceedings in the trial court do not disrupt the arbitration proceedings and render them ineffective. Brock v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1790, 1796; Titan/Value Equities Group, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 482, 488-489.
The court of appeal in Titan observed, in fact: “‘[A]n arbitration has a life of its own outside the judicial system.’ [Byerly v. Sale (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 1312,] 1316. The trial court may not step into a case submitted to arbitration and tell the arbitrator what to do and when to do it: it may not resolve procedural questions, order discovery, determine the status of claims before the arbitrator or set the case for trial because of a party’s alleged dilatory conduct. It is for the arbitrator, and not the court, to resolve such questions.” Titan/Value Equities Group, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 482, 489.
Under California law, a trial court may properly lift a stay of proceedings pursuant to the portion of Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.4 that provides that a trial court may stay an action until arbitration is completed, “or until such earlier time as the court specifies.” Manatt, Phelps, Rothenberg & Tunney v. Lawrence (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 1165,1172. A trial court is granted “discretion to lift a stay prior to the completion of arbitration only under circumstances in which lifting the stay would not frustrate the arbitrator’s jurisdiction.” MKJA, Inc. v. 123 Fit Franchising, LLC (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 643, 660.
Once a controversy is submitted to arbitration, it remains before the arbitrators until they have completed their determination of the matters unless the parties mutually agree to withdraw it. Gerard v. Salter (1957) 146 Cal.App.2d 840; see also Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1, 11-13 (discussion of legislative history of California arbitration statutes).
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction Provided that the City will stipulate to a preliminary injunction with respect to the provisions of Ordinance No. 6374 relating to immediate warrantless access to the short-term rental (STR) units, the Court DENIES the application for a preliminary injunction in all other respects, WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Sep 29, 2030
Orange County, CA
With respect to the first question, the Court concludes that Section 13.2(f) does not preclude SARVS from attempting to obtain compensation for any alleged loss of goodwill. Notably, nowhere in that section is there any reference to goodwill or any statement to the effect that any potential item of compensation not explicitly referenced therein is considered waived.
Apr 25, 2026
Orange County, CA
The motion is MOOT as to Issue 2, which seeks adjudication of the Third Cause of Action, which Plaintiffs dismissed as to Count 1, under the General Contract. [ROA 2604.] The Court’s analysis with respect to Saddleback’s motion directed to the contract claims applies equally to this motion. 4.
Apr 25, 2026
Orange County, CA
CAS004001, as amended on June 16, 2015 by State Board Order WQ 2015-0075, which is remanded to you for reconsideration in light of the Decision of this Court dated April 18, 2019. Nothing herein shall limit or control in any way the discretion legally vested in you. YOU ARE FURTHER COMMANDED to file with this Court a return to this writ on or before (90 plus 30 days as per Respondents’ request) stating what you have done to comply.
Jun 20, 2021
Orange County, CA
Plaintiff Francisco Velazquez’s Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Kim D. Stephens, Gregory F. Coleman, Paul C. Peel, Jason T. Dennett and Adam A. Edwards The pro hac vice applications of Adam A. Edwards, Gregory Coleman, Jason T. Dennett, Kim D. Stephens, and Paul C. Peel do not address whether the applicants are: (1) regularly employed in the State of California or (2) regularly engaged in substantial business, professional, or other activities in the State of California. CRC, Rule 9.40(a)(2) and (3).
Jun 20, 2021
Orange County, CA
Continued to 7-19-2019
Jun 20, 2021
Orange County, CA
When a defendant has been served and no answer, demurrer, or certain motion has been filed within the time specified in the summons, the clerk shall enter the default of the defendant. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 585, subd. (b).) The court shall then render judgment in the plaintiff’s favor, not exceeding the amount stated in the statement of damages, as appears by the evidence to be just. (Ibid.)
Mar 26, 2021
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
(“Assignor”), wherein Assignor agreed to sell a 2014 Peterbilt 579 Tractor, VIN 1XPBDP9X6ED226872 to ERK in exchange for ERK’s 47 monthly payments of $1,485.85, commencing on October 15, 2017 until paid in full. On or about May 15, 2020, ERK defaulted in making payments.
Mar 24, 2021
Real Property
Landlord Tenant
Los Angeles County, CA
The following defects are noted: Plaintiff has failed to provide the court with a summary of the case, as per California Rules of Court (“CRC”) Rule 3.1800(a)(1). It is unclear to the court how Defendants could have defaulted under the terms of the Agreement by allegedly failing to make an installment payment due on or about April 22, 2020 and all subsequent installments when the Agreement specifies that the last payment therein was due on November 23, 2017.
Mar 10, 2021
Collections
Promisory Note
Los Angeles County, CA
Failure to do so may result in the Petition being placed off calendar or denied. Moving party is ordered to give notice.
Feb 28, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Pena, and Does 1 to 10 arising from a trip-and-fall. Plaintiff alleges she was in Defendants’ residence. Defendants ran an extension cord to her room from another room due to a broken electrical outlet in her room. Plaintiff alleges the extension cord was improperly secured and caused her to trip and fall, sustaining severe injuries and damages requiring medical treatment.
Feb 16, 2021
Personal Injury/ Tort
Products Liability
Los Angeles County, CA
Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Compelling Cross-Complainant Pride Mobility Products Corporation's Further Responses to Cross-Complainant/Cross-Defendant Superior Mobility, Inc.'s Special Interrogatories, (Set 3) scheduled for 02/11/2021 are continued to 02/16/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department 29 at Spring Street Courthouse. The Moving Party is ordered to give notice.
Feb 11, 2021
Personal Injury/ Tort
Products Liability
Los Angeles County, CA
Judicial Assistant is directed to give notice to Plaintiff, who upon receipt of this notice, is ordered to give notice to all parties of record.
Feb 04, 2021
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
The “Account Statement Commission Calculation” lists only “Inspire Me, dba Young” and the invoice dated 8/1/16 attached thereto is directed to “Inspire Me Inc – DBA Young Actors Camp.” While the latter document is directed to “ATTN: Nichelle Rodriguez,” this reference is insufficient to establish individual liability against N. Rodriguez.
Feb 04, 2021
Collections
Promisory Note
Los Angeles County, CA
Judicial Assistant is directed to give notice to Plaintiff, who upon receipt of this notice, is ordered to give notice to all parties of record.
Feb 04, 2021
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
Judicial Assistant is directed to give notice to Plaintiff, who upon receipt of this notice, is ordered to give notice to all parties of record.
Feb 01, 2021
Personal Injury/ Tort
Medical Malpractice
Los Angeles County, CA
(NOTE: All hearings currently set in Department 29 of the Spring Street Courthouse are taken off calendar subject to being reset and notified by the receiving court Re: New hearing dates.) Judicial Assistant is directed to give notice to Plaintiff, who upon receipt of this notice, is ordered to give notice to all parties of record.
Feb 01, 2021
Personal Injury/ Tort
Medical Malpractice
Los Angeles County, CA
Discussion Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice: The Declaration of Brunilda Cuellar (“Cuellar”) states only that she is Plaintiff’s Custodian of Records, that she has custody and control of the records and files pertaining to the lease, and that Plaintiff filed this lawsuit against He and Wang, that He and Wang were served but failed to file any responsive pleadings. (Cuellar Decl., ¶¶1-4.)
Feb 01, 2021
Contract
Breach
Los Angeles County, CA
Judicial Assistant is directed to give notice to Plaintiff, who upon receipt of this notice, is ordered to give notice to all parties of record.
Feb 01, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
An Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to Proceed with Default Judgment is set for February 1, 2020.
Feb 01, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Judicial Assistant is directed to give notice to Plaintiff, who upon receipt of this notice, is ordered to give notice to all parties of record.
Jan 28, 2021
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
The Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings will not be heard on this date in Department 28. No further hearings will be heard in Department 28, Spring Street Courthouse, as of 11/13/20.
Jan 27, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
A of the COMPTON COURTHOUSE, for all purposes except trial.Department 1 hereby delegates to the Independent Calendar Court the authority to assign the case for trial to that Independent Calendar Court.Any pending motions or hearings, including trial and status conferences, will be reset, continued or vacated at the direction of the newly assigned Independent Calendar court.
Jan 26, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
FILED ON 11/24/20 BY MAURICIO HERIBERTO GUTIERREZ COLOCHO PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: Order Appointing Guardian of Minor Form GC-240 (revised 7-1-16) The Court is waiting for these items: Court Investigator’s Report
Jan 25, 2021
George
Contra Costa County, CA
CHRISTY REYNA RAMIREZ SURIO RASILIO SURIO PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: 1. Proof of mailing to all persons entitled to receive notice, including Regional Center. PrC § 1822 2. Return on Citation or waiver by counsel. PrC § 1824 3. Verified declaration by petitioner to clarify whether you have attended the orientation class for unlicensed conservators pursuant to LR 7.416 4.
Jan 25, 2021
George
Contra Costa County, CA
Please wait a moment while we load this page.