What is a Motion to Stay?

Useful Rulings on Motion to Stay

Recent Rulings on Motion to Stay

CYNTHIA MARIA RIBAS VS BEAU MONDE ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

Moreover, as set forth in a separate ruling, this Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to stay the instant proceedings, pending a final determination on appeal. As such, any motions for attorneys fees are stayed at this time. It is so ordered. Dated: July ___, 2020 Hon. Jon R.

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2020

STEVEN JONES V. GARY CONWAY, ET AL.

Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and motion to stay the proceedings are granted.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

VIGEN TSATURYAN, ET AL. VS WAWANESA INSURANCE COMPANY

MOTION TO STAY ARBITRATION HEARING (CCP §§ 1281.1) TENTATIVE RULING: Respondent Wawanesa General Insurance Company’s Motion for Stay of Arbitration Hearing is PLACED OFF CALENDAR. RESPONDENT IS ORDERED TO FILE NOTICES OF RELATED CASE IN LASC CASE NOS. BC667650 AND BC653561 WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

RICHARD SALKOW, ET AL. VS PINNACLE ESTATE PROPERTIES, INC., ET AL.

Because Defendants’ motion to stay is granted, Defendants’ demurrer is placed off-calendar.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MIRACLE OF B&J LLC VS MARILYN J ADAMS ET AL

At the time, Defendant Fidelity National Title Insurance Company (“Fidelity”) had a pending motion to stay or dismiss for forum non conveniens (to which Plaintiff had already filed an opposition). The Court indicated in its June 27, 2019 order that Fidelity could seek ex parte relief from the stay with regard to its pending motion after meeting and conferring with Plaintiff’s counsel. Fidelity did not seek such relief.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

MANIER VS. OC HEALTH GROUP, INC.

Defendant’s motion to stay the action, including Plaintiffs’ PAGA claims and any other non-arbitrable claims, during the pendency of arbitration is GRANTED. Defendant’s motion to dismiss the action is DENIED. To compel arbitration under either the CAA or FAA, there must be a valid arbitration agreement between the parties. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2; Chiron Corp. v. Ortho Diagnostic Sys., Inc. (9th Cir. 2000) 207 F.3d 1126, 1130.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

UNITED NATURAL FOODS, INC. VS AMERICOLD LOGISTICS, LLC, ET AL.

No Motion to stay the action or discovery pending resolution of the Motion to Compel Arbitration has been filed/ruled upon by this Court. Therefore, there is no “stay” in effect. This Motion concerns discovery related to the existence of a binding agreement to arbitrate. It is undisputed that there is a Motion to Compel Arbitration set for hearing on September 8, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

OUTSTANDING FOODS, INC. VS WARNOCK FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.

Defendant attempts to bring forth a motion to stay in its opposition instead of addressing the merits of this motion. This motion for leave to amend is timely. The Court expresses no views on whether it would or would not stay this proceeding. Defendant needs to make the appropriate reservation and filing and bring a separate noticed motion to stay. For these reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

AMINE OUDOUCHE IN HIS REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY UNDER THE PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ACT VS AMAZON FLEX, A WASHINGTON CORPORATION, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE

On March 4, 2020, Defendant filed the instant notice of 166.1 certification request and motion to stay action. Specifically, Defendant “(1) request[s] that this Court certify its February 6, 2020 order denying Amazon’s demurrer pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 166.1 and (2) move to stay the trial court proceedings while Amazon’s interlocutory appeal is considered.” (Motion, p. 1:4-7.) ANALYSIS: I. Request for Certification for Interlocutory Appellate Review A.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

NOEL LUSTIG, M.D., INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS AS PSYCHIATRIC MEDICAL GROUP VS MARC L. NEHORAYAN, M.D., A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

On November 6, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to stay proceedings. Additionally, on March 31, 2020, Defendants filed a demurrer with motion to strike pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10(e) and (f) on the grounds that Plaintiff’s fraud claim fails to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action and is uncertain. The demurrer with motion to strike is set for hearing on same date as the motion to stay.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ROBERTO ALVARADO, ET AL. VS HZB MANUFACTURING, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

On March 25, 2020, Defendants HZB, Pacific, Turner, and Cook filed a motion to stay the litigation pending determination of the motion to compel arbitration. Due to conditions and orders related to Covid-19, the court continued the hearing on the motion to stay to August 26, 2020. On April 24, 2020, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion for appointment of receiver. Due to conditions and orders related to Covid-19, the court continued the hearing on the motion to October 6, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

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

SALVATION INVESTMENT, LLC VS. MO MURRAYFIELD, LLC

Plaintiff’s objections to the joinder by TRP Fund VIII, LLC, MO Murrayfield, LLC, and Marcus & Millichap Real Estate Investment Services, Inc. in the Motion to Stay are OVERRULED. (See, e.g., Barak v. The Quisenberry Law Firm (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 654, 660-662.) Moving parties to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

LONG BONETTI OFFICE, LLC V. HAMISH MARSHALL

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. That power includes determining whether counsel is prohibited from representing a party in matters before this Court, such as arguing the merits of the pending motions to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

PERFECTED ROSES LLC V. WESTERLAY ORCHIDS LP, ET AL.

Demurrer Persoon Defendants’ Motion to Stay or Dismiss Action Westerlay Orchids’s Motion to Stay Proceedings Motion to Appear as Plaintiff’s Counsel Pro Hac Vice Attorneys: For Plaintiff: Timothy J. Trager (Reicker, Pfau, et al. [email protected] ); Franklin R. Cagle, III (HirschlerFleischer, PC – Richmond, Virginia [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] ) For Defendant Westerlay Orchids: Mark T. Coffin [email protected] For Defendants Persoon: Nathan C.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

LORENA L. SALAZAR, ET AL. VS JOSHUA CABRYON JOHNSON, ET AL.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER The motion to stay all discovery against Defendant is granted. The stay shall remain in effect until the Court’s Order to Show Cause re: Stay of Discovery, which shall be held on September 18, 2020, at 1:30 p.m. Defendants shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court. DATED: June 29, 2020 ___________________________ Stephen I. Goorvitch Judge of the Superior Court

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

CALIFORNIA AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY VS MIRNA E. ALCANTARA, ET AL.

SUBJECT: (1) Motion to Stay Proceedings Moving Party: Defendant Ranulfo Santarriaga Resp. Party: Plaintiff California Automobile Insurance Company SUBJECT: (2) Demurrer Moving Party: Defendant Ranulfo Santarriaga Resp. Party: Plaintiff California Automobile Insurance Company SUBJECT: (3) Demurrer Moving Party: Cross-Defendant Ranulfo Santarriaga Resp. Party: Cross-Complainant Mirna E. Alcantara The Court DENIES Defendant Santarriaga’s motion to stay proceedings.

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

IN RE CLOUDERA, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION

The Court will prepare the order. 17 18 Footnote 10: Defendant Intel Corporation’s motion to join in the Cloudera Defendants’ motion to stay is GRANTED. Footnote 11: The registration statement incorporated these and other public filings by reference. (Consolidated Complaint, ¶ 39.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

MM DEVELOPMENT VS. LINX CARD

Legal Framework for Determination of Forum Non Conveniens Motion Under Code of Civil Procedure § 410.30(a), a party may make a motion to stay or dismiss an action if the Court finds “that in the interest of substantial justice an action should be heard in a forum outside this state.” The California Supreme Court addressed at length the framework for determination of a forum non conveniens motion in Stangvik v.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

RIKA CORPORATION VS. JOKAKE CONSTRUCTION SERVICES ET AL

MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS Moving Party: Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant Metal-Weld Specialties, Inc. and Defendant Jokake Construction Services, Inc.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

RIKA CORPORATION VS. JOKAKE CONSTRUCTION SERVICES ET AL

MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS Moving Party: Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant Metal-Weld Specialties, Inc. and Defendant Jokake Construction Services, Inc.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JOHN BROSNAN VS. CLARISSA MIYAMOTO

HEARING ON MOTION TO STAY ACTION PER CCP 391.7 FILED BY CLARISSA DEGUIA MIYAMOTO * TENTATIVE RULING: * Appear.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

FINLEY VS. PORTERMATT ELECTRIC, INC.

Intervenor Frank Rubio’s (“Moving Party”) motion to stay action pending appeal is DENIED. An order denying intervention appears to be an appealable order (Hernandez v. Restoration Hardware, Inc. (2018) 4 Cal.5th 260, 263; Edwards v.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

MONICA BLUT VS OCEANS INTERNATIONAL PACKING AND SHIPPING, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

A defendant who has not yet appeared may make a motion to stay or dismiss on ground of inconvenient forum simultaneously with filing an answer, demurrer, or motion to strike. (CCP § 418.10(a), (e).) However, as long as the motion is brought within a reasonable time and absent prejudice to the plaintiff, there is no time limit on a motion to dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens. (Global Financial Distributors, supra, 35 Cal.App.5th at 193; Martinez v. Ford Motor Co. (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 9, 19-20.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

TICOR TITLE COMPANY OF CA VS LINA MINKOVITCH ET AL

On October 4, 2019, Defendant Yan filed the instant motion to stay proceedings. No opposition has been filed.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 119     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.