What is a Motion to Stay?

Useful Rulings on Motion to Stay

Recent Rulings on Motion to Stay

26-50 of 3221 results

ALLEN SUPPLY VS BRADLEY P KESSEL, ET AL.

C/O: 10-28-21 TRIAL DATE: 11-12-21 PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO STAY ALL PROCEEDINGS PENDING CONTRACTUAL ARBITRATION MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Allen Supply, in pro per RESP. PARTY: None MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS (CCP § 1281.4) TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff Allen Supply’s Motion for Stay is PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

  • Hearing

JOSEPH MORRISSEY VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES AND DOES 1-10

On July 13, 2020, the City filed a motion to stay in the federal action pursuant to the Colorado River doctrine and, in the alternative, motion to dismiss Morrissey’s second amended complaint (“Motion to Stay”). Cohen Decl., ¶4; RJN Ex. 2. In its Motion to Stay, the City argued that simultaneous federal and state actions would cause needless duplication of efforts, undermining the conservation of judicial resources and comprehensive disposition of the litigation. Id.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

JOHNSON VS CISNEY

GRANT the motion to stay the action pending resolution of the Alabama litigation. This case shall be STAYED and place in inactive files. Metropolitan previously filed a Motion to Stay with this court, which was heard on June 8, 2020. The court denied the motion—no evidence was provided that established a stay was necessary. In their prior motion, Metropolitan did not provide any complaints from the Federal District Court and instead only provided the Federal District Court’s docket.

  • Hearing

STEVEN A. SUGARMAN, ET AL. VS HALLE BENETT, ET AL.

*COUNSEL – YOU CANNOT SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE PRIOR TO THE HEARING* RULING ON SUBMITTED EX PARTE:The court has read the ex parte motion to stay motions for attorneys’ fees pending appeal, the opposition, and the joint statement. After considering the issues raised, Plaintiff’s ex parte motion to stay motions for attorneys’ fees pending appeal is denied. Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles Department 36 STEVEN SUGARMAN & STEVEN AND AINSLIE SUGARMAN LIVING TRUST, Plaintiffs, v.

  • Hearing

IRENE GUZMAN VS TRIXXI CLOTHING COMPANY, INC.

Defendant Trixxi Clothing Company, Inc.’s Motion to Stay is DENIED. The Court agrees with Plaintiff's arguments, including those under the Jarbo v. Hanlees Auto Group decision. (Jarbo v. Hanlees Auto Group (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 539, 556-557). The Court will be filing a full written ruling with its analysis. Counsel for Plaintiff to give notice.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

CALVERT VS. CAIAZZA

Motion continued to 11/20/20 at 9:00 AM in C14 to be heard in conjunction with defendant’s motion to stay this matter. Moving party to give notice.

  • Hearing

IN RE HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE CO. SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION

On July 15, 2020, the Court denied defendants’ motion to stay this action in favor of a related federal action, Costanzo v. DXC Tech. Co. (N.D. Cal., No. 5:19-CV-05794-BLF). The Court observed that a motion to dismiss had been heard in the federal action and was under submission with the federal court.

  • Hearing

SHAW VS. BEVERAGES & MORE

HEARING ON MOTION TO STAY LITIGATION FILED BY BEVERAGES & MORE!, INC., * TENTATIVE RULING: * The Court exercises its discretion to stay the arbitration of plaintiffs’ individual claims, and allow the litigation of plaintiffs’ PAGA claims to proceed. (See, Jarboe v. Hanlees Auto Group (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 539, 557.) This will allow for a more timely decision of claims brought on behalf of the public — claims that may ultimately benefit multiple employees rather than only a single employee.

  • Hearing

MOHAMMED KHODABAKHSH VS TERRY L VECHICK, ET AL.

“The provisions of Section 418.10 do not apply to a motion to stay or dismiss the action by a defendant who has made a general appearance.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 410.30, subd. (b).) “A defendant, on or before the last day of his or her time to plead or within any further time that the court may for good cause allow, may serve and file a notice of motion for one or more of the following purposes . . . (2) To stay or dismiss the action on the ground of inconvenient forum.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10, subd.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CORZINE V. RIEMANN

A) Motion to Stay Defendants David Kent Riemann (“Riemann” individually), 520 Capital, LLC, Tunuva Media, LLC, Tunuva Media, Inc., DKR Media Group, LLC, D&L Investment Services, Inc., and Lisa Kimberly Corzine-Riemann (“Lisa” individually; “Defendants” all together) Motion to Stay Proceedings (“MTS”) is DENIED. Defendants allege they recently learned the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) is convening a grand jury to investigate Riemann and his related business entities regarding Plaintiff’s claims.

  • Hearing

DHANANJAY KULKARNI, AN INDIVIDUAL VS KENNARD DEVELOPMENT GROUP, DBA KDG CONSTRUCTION CONSULTING, A CORPORATION, ET AL.

Motion to Stay Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.4 states that the court shall stay the action or proceeding if the court has ordered arbitration. ((Ibid. ).) Accordingly, the case is stayed pending completion of arbitration. When a plaintiff is compelled to arbitrate individual Labor Code claims, any concurrent PAGA claim must be stayed “[b]ecause the issues subject to litigation under the PAGA might overlap those that are subject to arbitration of [the plaintiff’s] individual claims.” ((Franco v.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

ML DOE VS. DOE 1, A CORPORATION

JOINDER TO MOTION TO STAY/QUASH SUBPOENA RULING: The hearing on Non-Party Tod Brown’s Motion to Stay Deposition and Quash Deposition Subpoena to Bishop Tod Brown and Defendant The Roman Catholic Bishop of Orange’s Joinder thereto is CONTINUED to 1/12/21 at 9:00 a.m. in Department C19 pending the outcome of Plaintiff’s “Notice of Submission of Add-On Request and Petition for Coordination (and Request for Stay of Proceedings Prior to Determination of Petition)”.

  • Hearing

MARK HOLMES, ET AL. VS STATE TO STATE TRUCKS, INC., ET AL.

Motion to Stay or Dismiss the Action for Inconvenient Forum, filed by Defendant State 2 State Trucks, Inc., is GRANTED. The action is STAYED so that litigation may proceed in Arizona. In this action, Plaintiffs Mark and Sandra Holmes allege that they were injured in an automobile collision that occurred on June 14, 2019 in Coconino County, Arizona.

  • Hearing

HADAR VS. LURIA

HEARING ON MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING JUDICIAL REVIEW FILED BY GERSHON LURIA, IRIT LURIA * TENTATIVE RULING: * The Defendants have filed a motion to stay proceedings in this court pending resolution of their appeal of the court’s ruling granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Adjudication. The Plaintiffs have filed no opposition to the requested stay. Therefore, the motion is granted. Proceedings in this case are stayed pending Defendants’ appeal.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

ADVANTAGE SALES & MARKETING, LLC VS. THE ONEIDA GROUP INC.

Under subdivision (a)(2) of section 418.10, a defendant may, on or before the last day to plead, file and serve a notice of motion to stay or dismiss the action on the ground of inconvenient forum. Moving defendant contends that a forum selection clause in the contract that is alleged in the complaint and attached to it as an exhibit is valid and provides that any disputes involving the parties must be litigated in Delaware state or federal court.

  • Hearing

WRIGHT VS BANK OF AMERICA N.A.

Furthermore, given that the First UD Action has been dismissed, the motion to stay that action is moot. In a belatedly filed Notice of Errata, Mr. Casas reveals that his motion to consolidate and stay, was intended to refer to the Second UD Action. But even if the court substitutes the Second UD Action into the motion to consolidate and stay wherever the First UD Action is mentioned, the motion to consolidate still fails: The Second UD Action proceeded to Judgment on September 11, 2020. (ROA No. 2481).

  • Hearing

FISH VS. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.

s Motion to Stay, or in the Alternative to Dismiss the Duplicative Action 4) Status Conference Before the Court are three motions: Defendants Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., Toyota Motor North America, Inc., and Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc. (collectively, the “Corporate Defendants”) demur to the complaint. (ROA 22.)

  • Hearing

FISH VS. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.

s Motion to Stay, or in the Alternative to Dismiss the Duplicative Action 4) Status Conference

  • Hearing

CITY OF MONROVIA VS PAULINE WHITE, ET AL

Ruling on White's motion to stay on the ground asserted would require the court to decide whether the order at issue was void or voidable or neither. Such a ruling would involve resolution of a disputed legal issue and could require interpretation of the record in a manner affecting the merits of the appeal. The court declines to make such a ruling in the context of a motion to stay the appeal.

  • Hearing

MANZANO V. WELLS FARGO BANK

On August 19, 2020 the court denied plaintiff’s motion to stay foreclosure. On August 27, 2020 the court denied plaintiffs’ ex parte application to reconsider the court’s denial of the motion to stay foreclosure. The court in denying reconsideration found that not only was there no emergency justifying ex parte relief, there is no new evidence presented. On September 10, 2020 plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider the court’s August 19 2020 denial of the motion for TRO.

  • Hearing

CERTIFIED NURSING REGISTRY, INC., ET AL. VS LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES G. SMITH, APC, ET AL.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO STAY ACTION/PROCEEDINGS Plaintiffs Certified Nursing Registry, Inc. and Cristina Sy (jointly, “Plaintiffs”) filed this Complaint for Legal Malpractice against Defendants Law Offices of Charles G. Smith, APC and Charles G. Smith (jointly, “Defendants”) on April 8, 2020. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants committed legal malpractice in their representation of Plaintiffs in an underlying civil lawsuit entitled Medipro Medical Staffing, LLC v.

  • Hearing

MOHAMMAD SAEID AJILIAM, ET AL. VS MOHAMMAD REZA AGHAMOHAMMADI, ET AL.

.: 20STCV05332 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS TO AVOID INVOLUNTARY DISSOLUTION Date: October 29, 2020 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept. 56 MOVING PARTIES: Defendants Brandon Agha, Sam Agha (“Agha”), and Mohammad Reza Aghamohammadi RESPONDING PARTIES: Plaintiffs Mohammad Saeid Ajilian and Ehsan Ajilian The Court has considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers. BACKGROUND This action arises from alleged wrongful actions in connection with the purchase of a car dealership.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

BRITTNEY MEJICO, AN INDIVIDUAL VS TAMARA MELLON BRAND, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION

Defendant’s motion to stay is denied. Nor does Defendant’s further contention that there is no legal standard for Americans with Disabilities Act violations based on websites provide any basis to stay the instant action. Conclusion and ORDER Based on the foregoing, Defendant Tamara Mellon Brand, Inc.’s motion to stay is DENIED.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

TUTOR PERINI CORPORATION, A MASSACHUSETTS CORPORATION VS 299 N. FEDERAL MASTER, LLC,

Thus, the Court exercises its discretion and GRANTS Defendant’s motion to stay this action pending the resolution of the Florida Action. DEMURRER Due to the Court granting the motion to stay, the demurrer is moot and is taken off-calendar. Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

  • Hearing

NAHID REZAEIYAN VS BOITE, LLC, ET AL.

On October 9, 2020, the court (Department 78) granted Plaintiff’s motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration. The stay order does not apply to the attachment proceedings. Defendants make no argument to the contrary. On October 15, 2020, Defendants filed a supplemental brief re: CCP section 1281.8 ineffectual relief requirement.

  • Hearing

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 129     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.