What is a Motion to Lift Stay?

Useful Rulings on Motion to Lift Stay

Recent Rulings on Motion to Lift Stay

51-75 of 10000 results

NGUYEN VS. TURBO

Motion to Strike Portions of the Complaint Moving Party: Defendant Bernard Turbow (esa Bernard Turbo) Responding Party: None Ruling: Defendant Bernard Turbow, M.D.’s Motion to Strike Portions of the Plaintiff Vinh Huu Nguyen’s Complaint is GRANTED with leave to amend. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436.) The Complaint fails to plead facts supporting the claim for punitive damages or attorney’s fees. To plead a claim to recover punitive damages, a plaintiff must allege facts showing malice, oppression, or fraud. (Civ.

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2020

GUTIERREZ VS. FARMER BOYS FOOD, INC.

Motion for Protective Order Moving Party: Defendant Farmer Boys Foods, Inc. Responding Party: Plaintiff Melinda Gutierrez Ruling: Defendant Farmer Boys Foods, Inc.’s Motion for Protective Order is DENIED. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2017.020, 2025.420.) Defendant failed to engage in a meaningful meet and confer prior to filing this motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.420(a).)

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2020

WOODALL VS. WOODALL

Motion to Seal and Redact OFF CALENDAR NOTICE OF MOTION WITHDRAWL FILED 7/15/20

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2020

STARR VS. STARR

Motion to Appoint Guardian Ad Litem OFF CALENDAR PER MOVING PARTY

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2020

BUI VS. ROBERTS

Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2020

TORRES VS. BROWN

Motion for Leave to File Cross Complaint

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2020

BANK OF AMERICA VS. KU

Motion to Vacate

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2020

MORALES VS. TORRES GENERAL, INC

Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication OFF CALENDAR NOTICE OF MOTION WITHDRAWL FILED 7/31/20

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2020

DAI VS. DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Moving Party: Defendant Director of the Department of Motor Vehicles Responding Party: None Ruling: Respondent Director of the Department of Motor Vehicles’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED without prejudice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438; Veh. Code, § 14401.) Vehicle Code Section 14401(a) provides a 90-day deadline within which to bring a petition to review any DMV order revoking the privilege of a person to operate a motor vehicle. (Veh.

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2020

UPGRADE SECURITIZATION TRUST I VS CHRISTOPHER LOPEZ

The Loan was subsequently assigned to Plaintiff. Lopez has defaulted on the Loan by failing to make all required payments due thereunder. On October 25, 2019, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting a cause of action against Lopez and Does 1-5 for: Breach of Written Contract On January 16, 2020, Lopez’s default was entered. A Case Management Conference is set for March 23, 2020. Discussion Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2020

SACK VS. PINNER CONSTRUCTION CO.

Demurrer to Amended Complaint 2. Motion to Strike Portions of the Complaint

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2020

PARTAKER VS. HYUNDAI MOTORS AMERICA

Motion for Bifurcation 2. Motion for Protective Order

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2020

CITY OF COSTA MESA VS. NATIONAL THERAPEUTIC SERVICES, INC.

Motion for Sanctions Moving Party: Responding Party: 2. Motion for Preliminary Injunction Moving Party: Responding Party:

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2020

HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION, ET AL. VS CHERRY DESIGNS INC., A CORPORATION

(“Defendant”) has failed to pay premiums due under an insurance policy (i.e., No. 76 WEG PK 2367) issued to Defendant by Plaintiffs. On May 3, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Defendant and Does 1-10 for: Breach of Contract Book Account Account Stated Services Rendered On February 13, 2020, Defendant’s default was entered. A Case Management Conference is set for September 16, 2020. Discussion Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Aug 16, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

COURTNEY CROSBY VS SPITZER HELICOPTER LLC ET AL

Nature of Proceedings: Motion to Quash Tentative not yet posted, please check again.

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

ASTRID G NELSON MEGEL ET AL VS THE STANDARD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL

Nature of Proceedings: Motion to Compel; Motion for Leave to File FAC; Motion for Trial Preference; Case Management Conference Tentative not yet posted, please check again.

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

TAYLER HANNES VS PARKS MANAGEMENT COMPANY

Nature of Proceedings: Case Management Conference; Motion to Compel Tentative not yet posted, please check again.

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

CHELSEA HERZOG VS NUSIL TECHNOLOGY LLC ET AL

Nature of Proceedings: (3) Motions to Compel Tentative not yet posted, please check again.

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

GDNSHIP OF CARLOS LOBO

RE: SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE FINDINGS FILED ON 02/14/20 BY XIOMARA BEATRIZ LOPEZ LOBO PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: 1. Appearances 2. Proof of mailing to all parties entitled to notice Note: Spanish interpreter requested

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

  • Judge

    Fenstermacher

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

GDNSHIP OF JOSE LOBO

RE: PET’N FOR APPTMNT OF GRDN OF PERSON FILED ON 02/14/20 BY XIOMARA BEATRIZ LOPEZ LOBO PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: 1. Appearances 2.

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

  • Judge

    Fenstermacher

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

CONS. OF MASSOUD FAQUIRYAN

Letters of Temporary Guardianship issued to petitioner expire 10-29-20. 2. Court will dispense with further formal service on mother Melissa Salinas, pursuant to Decl. filed 2-13-2020, 2-21-2020 and 7-22-2020. Court will dispense with further formal service on unknown maternal and paternal grandparents, pursuant to Decl. attached to UCCJEA Form GC-120 filed 7-22-2020.

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

CONS OF JAMES D. BROWN

Nina Dong is ordered to appear, pursuant to 6-29-2020 minute order Note: Letters of Temporary Conservatorship of Person/Estate issued to Public Guardian 3- 29-19. C.C. COUNTY HEALTH SERVICES DEPT COUNTY COUNSEL NENITA BERMUDEZ KONSTATINE A DEMIRIS

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

CANDIDA COTTO VS HOLLYWOOD PIANO COMPANY

Demurrer On March 9, 2020, Plaintiff filed a demurrer to Defendant’s answer and affirmative defenses. On July 24, 2020, Defendant filed an opposition to the demurrer. DISCUSSION Plaintiff demurs to the answer and the 1st to 22nd affirmative defenses asserted by Defendant in its answer. A. Time to Answer Plaintiff argues that Defendant belatedly filed an answer. Pursuant to CCP §412.20, a defendant has 30 days after the summons is served on it to file a response to the complaint.

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MARAT CHORNY VS SPECIAL CAKES BY RUBEN, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Goorvitch found that Defendant was a suspended corporation and lacked legal capacity to defend a civil action during its suspension. Nonparty Ohio Security Insurance Company ("Ohio") filed the instant motion on July 20, 2020. No opposition has been filed. RELIEF REQUESTED: Ohio moves for leave to intervene in the instant lawsuit pursuant to CCP § 387.

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

VIVIAN BANH VS LAW OFFICES OF LARRY H. PARKER

On February 19, 2020, Defendant filed the instant unopposed motion to deem the requests for admission admitted and request for monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,500.00 against Plaintiff. ANALYSIS: A. Relevant Law For a motion to compel, all a propounding party must show is that it properly served its discovery requests, that the time to respond has expired, and that the party to whom the requests were directed failed to provide a timely response. (See Leach v.

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

  « first    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.