A stay order suspends all proceedings in the action to which it applies. (Rules of Court, Rule 3.515(h).) “Trial courts generally have the inherent power to stay proceedings in the interests of justice and to promote judicial efficiency.” (Freiberg v. City of Mission Viejo (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1489.) Trial judges have inherent powers to manage and fashion procedures to control litigation to insure the orderly administration of justice. (Cottle v. Super. Ct. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1367, 1376-79.)
A motion to stay a pending matter may be brought by any party to the action, whether or not that party is a party to an arbitration agreement. (Marcus v. Super. Ct. (1977) 75 Cal.App.3d 204, 210.)
A motion for a stay of proceedings must,
(Rules of Court, Rule 3.515(b).)
“A stay order may be issued with or without a hearing. A party filing a motion for a stay order or opposition thereto may request a hearing to determine whether the stay order should be granted. A request for hearing should be made at the time the requesting party files the motion or opposition. If the coordination motion judge grants the request for a hearing, the requesting party must provide notice.” Cal. Rules of Court 3.515(e).
Petitioners may request a stay on an ex parte basis. In order to obtain ex parte relief, Appellants “must make an affirmative factual showing in a declaration containing competent testimony based on personal knowledge of irreparable harm, immediate danger, or any other statutory basis for granting relief ex parte.” (California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1202(c).)
There is no automatic stay of an unlawful detainer judgment upon the filing of an appeal. Instead, the party seeking a stay of the judgment must file an application in the trial court and show, with supporting evidence, compelling reasons why the court should issue a stay while the appeal is pending. Code of Civil Procedure § 1176(a) provides, in relevant part: “An appeal taken by the defendant [in an unlawful detainer action] shall not automatically stay proceedings upon the judgment. . . . Stay of judgment shall be granted when the court finds that the moving party will suffer extreme hardship in the absence of a stay and that the nonmoving party will not be irreparably injured by its issuance. . . . If the trial or appellate court stays enforcement of the judgment, the court may condition the stay on whatever conditions the court deems just, but in any case it shall order the payment of the reasonable monthly rental value to the court monthly in advance as rent would otherwise become due as a condition of issuing the stay of enforcement. . . .” Additionally, the moving party must show that a substantial question will be raised on the appeal. (Mehr v. Superior Court (1983) 139 Cal.App.3d 1044, 1050.)
“When an unlawful detainer proceeding and an unlimited action concerning title to the property are simultaneously pending, the trial court in which the unlimited action is pending may stay the unlawful detainer action until the issue of title is resolved in the unlimited action, or it may consolidate the actions. If it does neither and instead tries the issue of title under the summary procedures that constrain unlawful detainer proceedings, the parties’ right to a full trial of the issue of title may be unfairly expedited and limited. If complex issues of title are tried in the unlawful detainer proceeding, the proceeding loses its summary character; defects in the plaintiff’s title ‘are neither properly raised in this summary proceeding for possession, nor are they concluded by the judgment.’” (Martin-Bragg v. Moore (Aug. 1, 2013, B238772) 2013 Cal.App. Lexis 704, *35-*36.)
“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.” (Farmland v. Irr. Co. v. Dopplmaier (1957) 48 Cal.2d 208, 215; see also Bains v. Moores (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 445, 480.)
California courts have broad discretion to stay their own proceedings in favor of a previously-filed action involving the same subject matter. (Century Indemnity Co. v. Bank of America, 58 Cal.App.4th at 411.) In exercising its discretion, the Court should consider:
(Century Indemnity Co. v. Bank of America, 58 Cal.App.4th at 411.)
“In ruling on a motion for a stay order, the assigned judge must determine whether the stay will promote the ends of justice, considering the imminence of any trial or other proceeding that might materially affect the status of the action to be stayed, and whether a final judgment in that action would have a res judicata or collateral estoppel effect with regard to any common issue of the included actions.” Cal. Rules of Court 3.515(f).
“Convenience of the courts is best served when motions to stay proceedings are discouraged.” (Avant! v. Super. Ct. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 876, 888.) “California courts are guided by the strong principle that any elapsed time other than that reasonably required for pleadings and discovery is unacceptable and should be eliminated. To that end, courts must control the pace of litigation, reduce delay, and maintain a current docket so as to enable the just, expeditious, and efficient resolution of cases.” (In re Alpha Media Resort Investment Cases (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 1121.)
Actions are not automatically stayed upon the filing of a petition to coordinate, but they may be stayed by the coordination motion judge. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.515.)
“Granting a stay in a case where the issues in two actions are substantially identical is a matter addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. ‘In exercising its discretion the court should consider the importance of discouraging multiple litigation designed solely to harass an adverse party, and of avoiding unseemly conflicts with the courts of other jurisdictions. It should also consider whether the rights of the parties can best be determined by the court of the other jurisdiction because of the nature of the subject matter, the availability of witnesses, or the stage to which the proceedings in the other court have already advanced.’” Thomson v. Continental Ins. Co. (1967) 66 Cal.2d 746–747.
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; see also Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2; Cardiff Equities, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1541, 1551.
The court may stay discovery until disposition of any pending criminal proceedings or until the statute of limitations has run on criminal prosecution, so that defendant can no longer claim a 5th Amendment privilege. (Klein v. Super. Ct. (1988) 198 Cal.3d 894, 905.) Any party or witness in a discovery proceeding may claim the 5th Amendment privilege against disclosure of information that might tend to incriminate him or her under either federal or state law. (Zonver v. Super. Ct. (1969) 270 Cal.2d 613, 620-621.) To alleviate a party’s difficult choice between defending the civil or criminal case, a party objecting to discovery is generally entitled to a stay of discovery in the civil action pending disposition of the criminal matter “when both civil and criminal proceedings arise out of the same or related transactions.” (Pacers, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 686, 690.) Such a stay is discretionary; defendant has no right to a blanket stay on 5th Amendment grounds. (Klein v. Super. Ct. (1988) 198 Cal.3d 894, 905.)
“Even where the civil discovery process is directed against an individual defendant who is also a defendant in a related criminal case, the Ninth Circuit has held that ‘[t]he Constitution does not ordinarily require a stay of civil proceedings pending the outcome of criminal proceedings.’ (Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision (9th Cir. 1995) 45 F.3d 322, 324.) Keating observed that the question of whether a civil proceeding should be stayed pending the outcome of a parallel criminal proceeding often rests not on the constitutional issue of self-incrimination, but on the issue of abuse of discretion. ‘In the absence of substantial prejudice to the rights of the parties involved, [simultaneous] parallel [civil and criminal] proceedings are unobjectionable under our jurisprudence.’ ‘Nevertheless, a court may decide in its discretion to stay civil proceedings... ‘when the interests of justice seem[] to require such action.’” (Avant! Corp. v. Super. Ct. (2000) 79 Cal. App. 4th 876, 885.)
The court enumerated the factors to be considered in determining whether or not to stay the action. (Avant! Corp. v. Super. Ct. (2000) 79 Cal.4th 876, 885.) These factors include,
(Avant! Corp. v. Super. Ct. (2000) 79 Cal.4th 876, 885.)
Code of Civil Procedure, section 916(a) stays proceedings in the trial court “upon the judgment or order appealed from or upon the matters embraced therein or affected thereby, including enforcement of the judgment or order, but the trial court may proceed upon any other matter embraced in the action and not affected by the judgment or order.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 916(a).) “The purpose of the automatic stay provision of section 916, subdivision (a) ‘is to protect the appellate court's jurisdiction by preserving the status quo until the appeal is decided.’” (Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino (2005) 35 Cal.4th 180, 189.) A proceeding “affects the effectiveness of an appeal if the possible outcomes on appeal and the actual or possible results of the proceeding are irreconcilable.” (Varian Medical Systems, Inc., supra, 35 Cal.4th at 190.)
“[A]n appeal does not stay proceedings on ‘ancillary or collateral matters which do not affect the judgment [or order] on appeal’ even though the proceedings may render the appeal moot.” (Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino (2005) 35 Cal.4th 180, 191.) Some proceedings, such as motion for new trial or motion to expunge lis pendens, are ancillary by law; other post-order proceedings may also be ancillary or collateral if the proceeding “could or would have occurred regardless of the outcome of the appeal.” (Ibid.)
“[W]hen a federal action has been filed covering the same subject matter as is involved in a California action, the California court has the discretion but not the obligation to stay the state court action. In exercising its discretion the court should consider the importance of discouraging multiple litigation designed solely to harass an adverse party, and of avoiding unseemly conflicts with the courts of other jurisdictions. It should also consider whether the rights of the parties can best be determined by the court of the other jurisdiction because of the nature of the subject matter, the availability of witnesses, or the stage to which the proceedings in the other court have already advanced. The California Supreme Court also has isolated another critical factor favoring a stay of the state court action in favor of the federal action.... the federal action is pending in California not some other state.” (Caiafa Prof. Law Corp. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 800, 803-804.)
Stays are frequently requested before the challenged decision has gone into effect, and before the administrative record has been prepared. As a leading treatise on civil writ practice notes, “If the writ proceeding is based on an administrative record, the record often will not yet be prepared when the writ petition is filed and a stay is sought.” (1 California Civil Writ Practice (Cont. Ed. Bar 4th Ed.) ¶ 6.14.)
Application for stay is made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, subdivision (g). “Except as provided in subdivision (h), the court in which proceedings under this section are instituted may stay the operation of the administrative order or decision pending the judgment of the court, or until the filing of a notice of appeal from the judgment or until the expiration of the time for filing the notice, whichever occurs first. However, no such stay shall be imposed or continued if the court is satisfied that it is against the public interest.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1094.5(g).) Subdivision (h) applies where a state agency conducts a hearing required to be conducted under the Administrative Procedure Act. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1094.5(h)(1).) Subdivision (h) does not apply to a hearing before a municipal civil service commission. (Hansen v. Civil Service Board (1957) 147 Cal.App.2d 732, 734.) “The application for the stay shall be accompanied by proof of service of a copy of the application on the respondent. Service shall be made in the manner provided by Title 4.5 (commencing with Section 405) of Part 2 or Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 1010) of Title 14 of Part 2.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1094.5(g).)
The California Arbitration Act expressly recognizes that arbitration is appropriate in actions to foreclose mechanics’ liens. A lien claimant can file an action along with an application for stay pending arbitration or a statement of intent to file such an application within 30 days. CCP § 1281.5(a). A defendant waives her right to arbitrate if she answers the complaint without filing a petition to compel arbitration pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1281.2. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.5(c).)
Under Civil Code §§ 55.54(d)(4)(B) and 55.545(c)(2), a defendant may request a stay of proceedings based on a connected request for an early evaluation conference on the ground that the site at issue has been inspected by a Certified Access Specialist (“CASp”). The defendant must serve a copy of the CASp report at least 15 days before the date set for the early evaluation conference.
Civil Code section 55.54(b) provides, in pertinent part:
Civil Code § 55.54 provides further information in connection with the conduct of an early evaluation conference and stays.
If the defendant is in military service, the court must stay proceedings for at least 90 days if the court determines there may be a defense to the action that requires defendant's presence. (50 USC App., §§ 521(d), 522(b).) The court may extend that stay for up to the duration of defendant's military service plus 90 days upon a showing that military duty continues to affect defendant's ability to appear. (50 USC App., §§ 521(d), 525(a).)
.: BC670620 ORDER RE: MOTION TO STAY CIVIL DISCOVERY AS TO CERTAIN DEFENDANTS Date: February 5, 2021 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept. 56 On the Court’s own motion, the Court continues the hearing on the motion for an order staying civil discovery[1], filed by Defendants Rx Unlimited LLC, Brian Goldstein, and Clifton Braddy, scheduled for 2/5/2021 at 8:30 a.m. at Stanley Mosk Courthouse in Department 56 to 2/17/2021 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 56. Moving parties are ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Feb 05, 2021
Other
Intellectual Property
Los Angeles County, CA
On March 20, 2019, the Court granted SPA’s motion to stay the proceedings and appoint appraisers for the purpose of ascertaining the fair value of Plaintiff’s shares in the corporation. The appointment order states that the appraisers are “required to consider the value of any corporate assets and liabilities including shareholder derivative claims.” The appointment order also states that the appraisers “shall consider Madu.”
Jan 27, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendant Glendale Adventist Medical Center’s Motion to Stay is GRANTED. The court reiterates its order of March 11, 2020, staying proceedings. Defendant’s demurrer and motion to strike are placed off-calendar. Defendant to provide notice.
Jan 26, 2021
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
In the Arcadia Case, the Santa Barbara County Court granted a Motion to Stay Proceedings, determining that the interests of justice supported a stay pending resolution of the Appeal.
Jan 26, 2021
Other
Intellectual Property
Los Angeles County, CA
On July 19, 2019, the parties filed a joint motion to stay the case pending plaintiff’s exhaustion of Regents’ internal whistleblower administrative remedies. The court granted the motion on July 23, 2019 and ordered the parties to notify the court once the administrative process was completed. Plaintiff now moves the court for an order lifting the stay of the case. Regents oppose the motion.
Jan 25, 2021
Santa Barbara County, CA
The Court GRANTS the Motion to stay this action pending resolution of the Probate Action.
Jan 25, 2021
Orange County, CA
HEARING ON MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS FILED BY BEVERAGES & MORE!, INC. * TENTATIVE RULING: * Defendant’s Motion to Stay Proceedings is granted. This action is stayed until one of the following developments occurs: The Paez action, Paez v. Beverages & More, Inc., Los Angeles Superior Court No. 19-STCV-30950, is finally resolved by judgment, settlement, or otherwise.
Jan 21, 2021
Contra Costa County, CA
ANALYSIS Motion To Stay Action Request For Judicial Notice Defendant’s request that the Court take judicial notice of Plaintiff’s Rejection of Award and Request For Trial filed by Plaintiff in this action on November 17, 2020 is GRANTED per Evid. Code § 452(d)(court records). Discussion Defendant moves for an order staying this action pending binding arbitration.
Jan 21, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
.: 19STCV38462 Matter on calendar for: renewed motion for trial preference, motion to stay, severance of cross complaint Tentative ruling: Background This action arises from the fatal shooting of Rickie Starks on July 3, 2019 in Compton, CA. Plaintiff Mary Starks, Rickie’s mother, contends that Rickie was shot by Defendants Edwin Barajas and Taylor Ingersoll, Deputy Sheriffs employed by Defendant County of Los Angeles (“COLA”).
Jan 21, 2021
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendant’s’ motion to stay the proceedings pending completion of arbitration is granted. The court will sign the order. The case management conference scheduled for March 23, 2021 is vacated. The court sets a review hearing August 18, 2021 at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. 11B. Ross 1/21/2021 …………….. 20-4831 Malagon- Ford Motor Company Compel Arbitration 1/27/2021 Defendant Ford Motor Company (“FMC”) moves to compel arbitration with Plaintiff Jean Malagon.
Jan 21, 2021
San Joaquin County, CA
Defendant filed an ex parte motion to stay lockout and a motion to vacate judgment and quash writ of possession on December 17, 2020. The motions are timely. Defendant properly includes a proposed answer as part of the motion. He has satisfied the procedural requirements of CCP § 473(b). Ruling The motions to set aside the entry of default and quash writ of possession as to Hossein Hamedi are granted. Next dates: Notice:
Jan 21, 2021
Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna
Los Angeles County, CA
“Obviously, a court in hearing a motion to stay execution cannot decide the other pending action on its merits. The best that can be done is a reasonable effort to evaluate the respective arguments of the parties in light of the evidence presented at the hearing.” (Airfloor Co. of California, Inc. v. Regents of University of California (1979) 97 Cal.App.3d 739, 742.) i.
Jan 20, 2021
Real Property
other
Los Angeles County, CA
The Court denies the motion to stay without prejudice. The Court agrees that Defendants cannot defend this action without the opportunity to obtain discovery from Plaintiff. However, Defendants’ “excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts . . .” is a proper basis for a trial continuance, rather than a stay of the case. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (c).)
Jan 20, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Based on the foregoing, Defendants Arrowhead Towne Center LLC, Scottsdale Fashion Square LLC, and Queens Center SPE LLC’s motion to stay pending the resolution of the related Arizona action and Queens action is GRANTED. Conclusion Defendants Valley Stream Green Acres LLC and Tysons Corner Holdings LLC’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
Jan 20, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
The Court denies the motion to stay without prejudice. The Court agrees that Defendants cannot defend this action without the opportunity to obtain discovery from Plaintiff. However, Defendants’ “excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts . . .” is a proper basis for a trial continuance, rather than a stay of the case. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (c).)
Jan 20, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Nature of Proceedings: Motion to Stay Discovery/Continue Trial Confirmation Tentative
Jan 19, 2021
Santa Barbara County, CA
Defendant's Motion to stay or dismiss. "Although the Plaintiff and Defendant appear to have done business in California, it appears that neither of them is resident in California and that Defendant is resident in Illinois. Both parties are already before the Illinois court and the State of Illinois is a suitable alternative forum. Defendant has met the burden of showing that the public and private interest factors favor the Illinois forum.
Jan 19, 2021
San Joaquin County, CA
In the joint motion to stay the case, Regents estimated that it would take approximately six months to complete their internal investigation of plaintiffs’ whistleblower complaints. (Joint Motion to Stay Case, filed 5-20-19, p. 2:7-8.) To date, it has been approximately 19 months since the court entered its order staying the action for all purposes, including discovery. (Order, filed 5-22-19.)
Jan 15, 2021
Santa Barbara County, CA
In the joint motion to stay the case, Regents estimated that it would take approximately six months to complete their internal investigation of Signa’s whistleblower complaints. (Joint Motion to Stay Case, filed 5-20-19, p. 2:4-5.) To date, it has been approximately 19 months since the court entered its order staying the action for all purposes, including discovery. (Order, filed 5-22-19.)
Jan 15, 2021
Santa Barbara County, CA
Accordingly, the motion to stay this litigation pending resolution of the arbitration between Plaintiff and Defendant Kaiser Foundation Plan, Inc. is GRANTED.
Jan 14, 2021
Personal Injury/ Tort
Products Liability
Los Angeles County, CA
MOTION TO STAY ACTION FOR FORUM NON CONVENIENS IS GRANTED. Background On October 25, 2019, Plaintiff Outsourced Quality Assured Svc Inc. filed the instant action against Defendant National Solutions LLC dba National Debt Education Relief and Does 1 through 10. The Complaint asserts causes of action for: Breach of Contract; Book Account; Account Stated; and Services Rendered.
Jan 13, 2021
Collections
Collections
Los Angeles County, CA
Therefore, the court CONTINUES the following motions to 2-23-21 at 9:00 a.m. in Department C19: (1) Non-Party Tod Brown’s Motion to Stay Deposition and Quash Deposition Subpoena to Bishop Tod Brown filed on 8-14-20 under ROA No. 153; (2) Defendants’ Joinder in Non-Party Tod Brown’s Notice of Motion and Motion to Stay Deposition and Quash Subpoena to Bishop Tod Brown filed on 9-22-20 under ROA No. 194; (3) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses from Defendant Roman Catholic Bishop of Orange (RCBO) to
Jan 12, 2021
Orange County, CA
The court therefore denies Defendants’ motion to stay discovery on damages issues, as well as Defendants’ motion to bifurcate discovery and trial in this action on the issues of liability and damages. Defendants next request that the court bifurcate the issue of punitive damages.
Jan 12, 2021
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
The Estate asserted its intent to file a motion to stay on the basis of forum non conveniens but filed the Cross-Complaint to preserve its rights if the motion to stay were denied. (Cross-Compl., ¶¶ 20-21.) The Estate now moves to dismiss this matter for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and improper venue or, in the alternative, to dismiss on the grounds of forum non conveniens pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 410.30. Plaintiffs oppose.
Jan 12, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
The alternative motion to stay or dismiss the action on forum non conveniens grounds is therefore DENIED AS MOOT. Plaintiffs to give notice, unless waived. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 12, 2021 ___________________________________ Randolph M. Hammock Judge of the Superior Court
Jan 12, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Please wait a moment while we load this page.