What is a Motion to Stay?

Useful Rulings on Motion to Stay

Recent Rulings on Motion to Stay

226-250 of 3172 results

HOWARD FUCHS VS JOEL WERTMAN ET AL

The alleged facts relating to the timing of the Deed of Trust occurring shortly after the Court denied Defendant’s motion to stay enforcement of the sister state judgment suggest Defendant recorded the Deed of Trust at a moment he reasonably believed that debts that he had previously incurred would become due in amounts beyond his ability to pay them.

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

STEPHEN ALAN GREEN VS AXIALL CORPORATION, ET AL

. ------------------------------------- SUBJECT: MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND MOTION TO STAY DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF STEPHEN GREEN MOVING PARTY: Defendant Fabritec International Corporation and Joined by additional defendants RESP. PARTY: Plaintiffs Stephen Alan Green and Rhonda Annis Green TENTATIVE RULING Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order and Motion to Stay Plaintiff Stephen Green’s Deposition is DENIED, IN PART, WITH CONDITIONS. Plaintiff suffers from Stage 4 bladder cancer.

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

STEPHEN ALAN GREEN VS AXIALL CORPORATION, ET AL

. ------------------------------------- SUBJECT: MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND MOTION TO STAY DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF STEPHEN GREEN MOVING PARTY: Defendant Fabritec International Corporation and Joined by additional defendants RESP. PARTY: Plaintiffs Stephen Alan Green and Rhonda Annis Green TENTATIVE RULING Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order and Motion to Stay Plaintiff Stephen Green’s Deposition is DENIED, IN PART, WITH CONDITIONS. Plaintiff suffers from Stage 4 bladder cancer.

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

LESLIE BENE VS FIDELITY INVESTMENTS INC., ET AL.

Motion to Stay Under Massachusetts law, “Any action or proceeding involving an issue subject to arbitration shall be stayed if an order for arbitration or an application therefor has been made under this section or, if the issue is severable, the stay may be with respect to such issue only. When the application is made in such action or proceeding, the order for arbitration shall include such stay.” (Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 251, § 2(d).). Therefore, the matter is stayed pending the outcome of arbitration.

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

CESARE VIETINA VS ALAN NOVODOR, ET AL.

Conclusion Defendants’ motion to stay the instant action is granted.

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

DUAL DIAGNOSIS TREATMENT CENTER VS. HEALTH NET, INC., ET AL

Mohases Entities’ Motion to Stay Proceeding is GRANTED, in part. 6. Health Net’s Request for Court Order Addressing Articles Directed at Defendants and Defendants’ Counsel is DENIED. DISCUSSION 1. HEALTH NET’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ UNVERIFIED SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Health Net moves for an order granting it leave to file a First Amended Answer (“FAA”) to Plaintiffs’ unverified Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”).

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2020

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

TIMOTHY E. GROCHOW AND CHERYL B. GROCHOW, AS TRUSTEES OF THE TIMOTHY AND CHERYL GROCHOW 2016 TRUST DATED SEPTEMBER 26, 2016 VS WEST REMODELING, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

West Remodeling, Inc. et al. (19GDCV01164) TENTATIVE RULING: Defendants West Remodeling, Inc.’s and Ricky Dale West’s Motion to Stay Action and Compel Arbitration is GRANTED. Plaintiffs do not dispute that the letter of intent they signed contains an arbitration clause. (Compl. and Errata ¶¶ 11, 17 & Exs. 1, 2.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2020

AREA J, LLC ET. AL. VS. HOPE OF THE VALLEY

On June 17, 2019, the Court granted HOV’s motion to stay in part, staying the action as against Defendant Craft and denying the motion as to HOV. On February 25, 2020, the parties attended a mediation, which did not resolve the case. Defendant HOV filed the instant motion on April 4, 2020, seeking to file a cross-complaint alleging causes of action for: (1) breach of fiduciary duty against Delaplane; and (2) aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against Area J and HRC.

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

RICK A. MACHADO V. GINGER L. MANKINS, ET AL.

Also before the Court is Ginger and Wapita’s Motion to Stay the Civil Proceedings Pending Resolution of the Related Criminal Matter (Case No. 20F-00984). The criminal complaint was filed on February 5, 2020, two days before this civil action was filed and includes multiple counts of embezzlement under Penal Code section 487(b)(3).

  • Hearing

    Jun 18, 2020

JOSEPH MENDOZA ET AL VS BACON FAMILY CHILDCARE ET AL

The court grants, in part, defendant Cathleen Bacon’s motion to stay civil action pending resolution of criminal proceeding. The court stays all discovery directed to defendants or plaintiffs, including depositions, interrogatories, requests or demands for production, and requests for admission. All other discovery may proceed.

  • Hearing

    Jun 17, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

CLARK VS. LOYD

HEARING ON MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY FILED BY ALEXANDRA CLARK * TENTATIVE RULING: * Denied. There is no good cause to stay discovery over the objections of Defendants.

  • Hearing

    Jun 11, 2020

CHRISTOPHER MAZZEI V. CALABASSA LUXURY MOTORCARS

A defendant may serve and file a notice of motion to stay or dismiss the action on the ground of inconvenient forum. (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10(a)(2).) In determining whether to grant a motion based on forum non conveniens, a court must first determine whether the alternate forum is a “suitable” place for trial. If it is, the next step is to consider the private interests of the litigants and the interests of the public in retaining the action for trial in California.

  • Hearing

    Jun 11, 2020

KRISTIE DOYLE, ET AL. V. IMERYS TALC AMERICA INC., ET AL.

As a result of the delay, on March 27, 2020, J&J filed a motion to stay or dismiss the proceedings on the ground of forum non conveniens, which is presently before the Court. II. Motion to Stay or Dismiss J&J moves to stay or dismiss the action on the ground of forum non conveniens, based on its assertion that the state of Ohio is a more convenient forum.

  • Hearing

    May 28, 2020

DAVE JORGE VS TESLA, INC.

This Court GRANTS Defendant Tesla’s Motion to Stay the Action pending the outcome of the arbitration. The matter will be set for an ADR Review date of 10 December 2020 at 10:30 in this Department. ___________________________ _____________________________________________ DATED: HON.

  • Hearing

    May 21, 2020

ALAN BROOKS ET AL VS ADOMANI, INC. ET AL

ORDER ON MOTION TO STAY I. Statement of Facts. Plaintiff Alan Brooks and Defendants Adomani, Inc., Boustead Securities, LLC, James L. Reynolds, and Michael K. Menerey are involved in the matter of M.D. Ariful Mollik, et. al. v. Adomani, Inc., et. al., a securities class action lawsuit pending at the Superior Court of California, Riverside County filed in August 2018 which seeks to recover damages for alleged misstatements and omissions made in SEC filings.

  • Hearing

    May 21, 2020

BRYSON VS. SHEA HOMES

For the reasons set forth, the Court denies Defendant's motion to dismiss the action, but grants the motion to stay. Shea was the homebuilder/developer of a residential community in Oakley, California known as Summer Lake. Plaintiffs are the owners of six homes in the development which they allege have various construction defects. The owners of four of the homes purchased their homes directly from Shea, and the other owners are subsequent purchasers.

  • Hearing

    May 21, 2020

SOLANO TRANSP. AUTH. V. SCHERNER, ET AL.

Motion to Change Venue; Motion to Stay; Demurrer TENTATIVE RULING Motion to Change Venue Defendant Scherner’s motion to change venue is granted. Having fully considered applicable factors, including the convenience of both Plaintiff and Defendant and the location of the expected evidence (County of San Bernardino v. Superior Court (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 378, 387), the action is ordered transferred to the Superior Court of Contra Costa County. Motion to Stay Defendant Scherner’s motion to stay is denied.

  • Hearing

    May 14, 2020

CAPITAL EQUITY MANAGEMENT GROUP INC VS. SWANGER, STEVEN A

Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Proceedings from April 1, 2020 to February 1, 2021 and for Determination Regarding the Tolling of the 5 Year Statute CCP 583.310 – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion, to May 20, 2020, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 22. On April 16, 2020, Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of California, issued an Emergency Order pursuant to which the Stanislaus County Superior Court is conducting limited, emergency-only operations from April 16, 2020 through May 15, 2020.

  • Hearing

    May 06, 2020

STEPHEN ALAN GREEN VS AXIALL CORPORATION, ET AL

If the parties are unable to reach such a stipulation that would allow the deposition to proceed before June 24, 2020, Defendant Fabritec International Corporation, and all other defendant’s joining in Fabritec’s motion, are directed to submit a joint revised proposed order, on or before June 11, 2020 “Granting Motion for Protective Order and Motion to Stay Deposition of Plaintiff Stephen Green.”

  • Hearing

    Apr 27, 2020

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

STEPHEN ALAN GREEN VS AXIALL CORPORATION, ET AL

4-6-20 [cnt from 4-1-20] EX PARTE APPLICATION OF DEFENDANTS FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME FOR FILING AND SERVICE OF A MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND MOTION TO STAY DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF STEPHEN GREEN TENTATIVE RULING - TO BE ADOPTED WITHOUT ORAL ARGUMENT Having continued the hearing to consider Plaintiff's further opposition, and having fully reviewed the opposition filed 4-1-20 and the declaration in opposition filed 4-3-20, Court intends to adopt the same tentative ruling as published on 4-1-20, without

  • Hearing

    Apr 06, 2020

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

STEPHEN ALAN GREEN VS AXIALL CORPORATION, ET AL

4-1-20 EX PARTE APPLICATION OF DEFENDANTS FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME FOR FILING AND SERVICE OF A MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND MOTION TO STAY DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF STEPHEN GREEN TENTATIVE RULING: The exparte application to stay the deposition of Plaintiff Stephen Green is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Apr 01, 2020

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CAPITAL EQUITY MANAGEMENT GROUP INC VS. SWANGER, STEVEN A

Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Proceedings from April 1, 2020 February 1, 2021 and for Determination Regarding the Tolling of the 5 year Statute CCP 583.310 – On March 18, 2020, Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of California, issued an Emergency Order pursuant to which the Stanislaus County Superior Court is conducting limited, emergency only operations from March 18, 2020 through April 16, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Mar 25, 2020

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

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.); Franklin R. Cagle, III (Hirschler Fleischer, PC – Richmond, Virginia) For Defendant Westerlay Orchids: Mark T. Coffin For Defendants Persoon: Nathan C. Rogers (Rogers, Sheffield & Campbell) Rulings: 1.

  • Hearing

    Mar 17, 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: March 17, 2020 ___________________________ Stephen I. Goorvitch Judge of the Superior Court

  • Hearing

    Mar 17, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Defendants filed a motion to stay the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department November 5, 2019 order to vacate the Premises which ordered Defendants to vacate the Premises. Defendants’ motion is unopposed. DISCUSSION California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 901 says that “[a] judgment or order in a civil action may be reviewed as prescribed in this title.” California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 904.1(a) says that “[a]n appeal, other than in a limited civil case, is to the court of appeal.”

  • Hearing

    Mar 17, 2020

  « first    1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 127     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.