What is a Motion to Lift Stay?

Useful Rulings on Motion to Lift Stay

Recent Rulings on Motion to Lift Stay

126-150 of 10000 results

TORRES VS. BROWN

Motion for Leave to File Cross Complaint

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2020

FRIEDMAN & FRIEDMAN, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION VS ARMAN GHARIB

If this court were to grant Friedman & Friedman’s motion despite its omission to serve respondent with the notice required under section 6201, subdivision (a), such an order would deprive respondent of the specific protections the Legislature sought to provide him in enacting the MFAA.

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2020

HORACIO AYALA VS KATHERINE CLARK ET AL

Defendants’ Motion for an Order Imposing Terminating Sanctions, Including Dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint and Request for Sanctions is DENIED. On 2/24/2020, the Court ordered Plaintiff to pay $930 in sanctions for costs and fees incurred by Defendants, who filed three motions to compel responses to written discovery. Because responses were provided prior to the hearing, the request for an order to provide responses was denied as moot.

  • 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

MARTINEZ VS. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC

Motion to Strike Tax Costs Moving Party: Plaintiffs Irma L. Martinez and Aiman A. Kaskas Responding Party: Defendant Nationstar Mortgage LLC Ruling: Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion to tax costs is granted. Defendant Nationstar Mortgage LLC is awarded costs in the total amount of $1,909.58. Nationstar claimed as costs sanctions imposed against Plaintiff’s counsel for failure to appear at the Mandatory Settlement Conference. (Memo. of Costs, Item No. 16.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2020

ANA FLORES VS CEDRIC WHITE ET AL

“[T]he mere filing of a motion to tax costs may be a “proper objection” to an item, the necessity of which appears doubtful, or which does not appear to be proper on its face. [Citation.]

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

PARTAKER VS. HYUNDAI MOTORS AMERICA

Motion for Protective Order 2. Motion for Bifurcation Moving Party: Nonparty Hyundai America Technical Center, Inc. Responding Party: Plaintiff Victor Partaker Ruling Motion 1: HATCI’s motion for protective order is continued to 9/21/20 at 10:30 a.m. in Department C-26. HATCI and Plaintiff are ordered to engage in a further telephonic or video conference meet and confer effort, within 10 days of the date of this order, to discuss the testimony at issue.

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2020

MARTINEZ VS. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC

Motion to Tax Costs Moving Party: Plaintiffs Irma L. Martinez and Aiman A. Kaskas Responding Party: Defendant Nationstar Mortgage LLC Ruling: Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion to tax costs is granted. Defendant Nationstar Mortgage LLC is awarded costs in the total amount of $1,909.58. Nationstar claimed as costs sanctions imposed against Plaintiff’s counsel for failure to appear at the Mandatory Settlement Conference. (Memo. of Costs, Item No. 16.) Recoverable costs do not include the requested sanctions.

  • 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

JERRI LEE JOHNSON VS HOLLYWOOD PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL

On March 16, 2020, defendant filed this motion for terminating sanctions. As of that date, plaintiff had not properly responded to any of defendant’s discovery or paid the $840 she was ordered to pay in December 2019. (See Julie Birdt Decl. ¶¶ 9-13.) Plaintiff filed no opposition to this motion prior to the initial hearing on this motion, which occurred on July 14, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

SACK VS. PINNER CONSTRUCTION CO.

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

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2020

DARRELL GEOFFROY, ET AL. VS SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING LLC, ET AL.

As to the argument that Plaintiff failed to allege a tender of the default, a trustor disputing the claim against their property must allege tender of the default when the underlying debt is alleged to be voidable, rather than void. Preliminarily, it is noted that Plaintiff alleged that Defendant is not a party to the Deed of Trust and failed to present documents to support their claim.

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

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

BO PENG VS F.M. TARBELL CO., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

“[T]he mere filing of a motion to tax costs may be a “proper objection” to an item, the necessity of which appears doubtful, or which does not appear to be proper on its face. [Citation.]

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2020

TORRES VS. BROWN

Motion for Leave to File Cross Complaint Moving Party (MP): Defendant Civic Financial Services, LLC Responding Party (RP): Plaintiff Martha Torres Ruling: Defendant Civic Financial Services, LLC’s (“Civic”) motion for leave to file cross-complaint is granted. Defendant shall file and serve the cross-complaint attached to the Declaration of Seth P. Cox as Exhibit 1 by August 24, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2020

ON DECK CAPITAL, INC. VS JINIEE YOO

The breaches may include but are not limited to revoking authorizations for ACH transfers; the return or rejection of ACH debit transfers; failing to pay any missed payments as required by Exhibit A; and/or Plaintiff being unable to collect automatic payments on two consecutive dates due and/or Defendants failed to pay any obligations on two consecutive dates.” (Id., Attachment, BC-2.) Plaintiff alleges it is entitled to attorney fees by an agreement or statute according to proof.

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

QUARTERSPOT, INC. VS SN IMPORT EXPORT, LLC, ET AL.

DUE TO THE ONGOING COVID-19 PANDEMIC, PARTIES AND COUNSEL ARE STRONGLY ENCOURAGED TO AVOID IN-PERSON APPEARANCES AND TO APPEAR REMOTELY. LA COURT CONNECT IS NOW AVAILABLE.

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2020

BUI VS. ROBERTS

Thus, the motion is moot as to this cause of action. Moving party to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2020

PARTAKER VS. HYUNDAI MOTORS AMERICA

Motion for Bifurcation 2. Motion for Protective Order

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2020

JOSE RAMIREZ, ET AL. VS CANDACE EUNICE BOGAN, ET AL.

.: 18STCV03803 Hearing Date: August 17, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motion to be relieved as counsel Attorney Morteza Aghavali (“Counsel”) moves to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiffs Jose Ramirez, Nancy Mitchell De Jesus, and Janeth Jimenez De Jesus (“Plaintiffs”). The motion is denied without prejudice. Counsel has not filed forms MC-051 and MC-052 as required. (Cal Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.) Counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2020

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

City of Costa Mesa, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s denial of Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction to prevent the city’s enforcement of zoning ordinances against a sober living residence. (Exhibit 10). On 8/13/20, Defendants took the Motion for Preliminary Injunction and/or For Stay off calendar.

  • 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

HARRY D MCGOVERN VS. JIM CARTER

In support of his motion for fees, McGovern submits several declarations to include the Declaration of Mark B. Fredkin in support of Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Litigation Expenses, filed June 24, 2020 (“Fredkin Declaration”).

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

  « 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.