What is a Motion to Stay?

Useful Rulings on Motion to Stay

Recent Rulings on Motion to Stay

51-75 of 3172 results

ANNA BENEDETTI, ET AL. VS JOHNNY MIMS, ET AL.

PRESENTATION: On March 13, 2020, the Court granted City's motion to stay action. Plaintiffs filed the instant motion on August 07, 2020, City filed an opposition on September 14, 2020, and no reply has been received by the Court. RELIEF REQUESTED: Plaintiffs move for an order to lift the stay imposed on March 13, 2020. DISCUSSION: Standard of Review – Motion to Lift Stay – The court has the discretion to stay civil proceedings pending the outcome of criminal proceedings. Avant! Corp. v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

ANNA BENEDETTI, ET AL. VS JOHNNY MIMS, ET AL.

PRESENTATION: On March 13, 2020, the Court granted City's motion to stay action. Plaintiffs filed the instant motion on August 07, 2020, City filed an opposition on September 14, 2020, and no reply has been received by the Court. RELIEF REQUESTED: Plaintiffs move for an order to lift the stay imposed on March 13, 2020. DISCUSSION: Standard of Review – Motion to Lift Stay – The court has the discretion to stay civil proceedings pending the outcome of criminal proceedings. Avant! Corp. v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

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

The Court will defer ruling on the motion to stay until after Department 62 issues a ruling regarding the Notice of Related Case. (Super. Ct. L.A. County, Local Rules, rule 3.3(f)(1).) The Court continues the CMC to _____________, at ________, in Department 50, at which time the Court will determine if Department 62 has ruled upon the Notice of Related Case. If Department 62 does not relate the cases, at the hearing on _____________, the Court will reset the date for the motion to stay.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

IN RE MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES, INC. SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION

Defendants filed their motion to stay on June 29. No further proceedings have occurred in this case. Before this action commenced, on January 14, 2019, Or. Laborers Emps’ Pension Trust Fund v. Maxar Technologies, Inc, et al., “Federal Action”) was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The Federal Action is brought on behalf of individuals who purchased Maxar securities between March 26, 2018 and January 6, 2019—after the Merger.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

ESTATE OF LAURENCE O PILGERAM

Pilgeram’s motion to stay this proceeding pending resolution of motion to enforce settlement in civil action.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

CURTIS R. OLSON VS VIDALA AARONOFF, ET AL.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING APPEAL Background Plaintiff Curtis R. Olson (“Olson”) filed this action on December 23, 2019 against various defendants.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

MICHELLE NAKADATE AND JOHN TOLLISON VS JAYCO INC

("Defendant")'s motion to stay action is granted. See Cal. Code Civ. P. § 410.30(a). As an initial matter, Plaintiffs Michelle E. Nakadate and John N. Tollison (collectively, "Plaintiffs") cite an incorrect standard for a motion to stay under California Code of Civil Procedure ("CCP") § 410.30(a). Plaintiffs suggest that there is a strong presumption in favor of their chosen forum that Defendant bears the burden of overcoming by clear and convincing evidence.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

SLPR LLC VS SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT

TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay All Proceedings Pending Resolution of Disqualification Appeal is DENIED. Plaintiffs seek to stay this matter pending appeal of this Court's denial of Plaintiffs' Motion to Disqualify Port's Counsel Daley & Heft LLP or, alternatively, to clarify whether an earlier stay remains in effect. A stay is not automatic when a party appeals a pretrial order denying a motion to disqualify opposing counsel for a conflict of interest. (Reed v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ALBERTO CABRERA, ET AL. VS FCA US LLC, ET AL.

Defendants’ Motion to Stay the Proceedings is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SLPR LLC VS SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT

TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay All Proceedings Pending Resolution of Disqualification Appeal is DENIED. Plaintiffs seek to stay this matter pending appeal of this Court's denial of Plaintiffs' Motion to Disqualify Port's Counsel Daley & Heft LLP or, alternatively, to clarify whether an earlier stay remains in effect. A stay is not automatic when a party appeals a pretrial order denying a motion to disqualify opposing counsel for a conflict of interest. (Reed v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Breach

TYLER KING VS JOHN DANIEL GUEVARA, ET AL.

DISCUSSION On a motion to stay or dismiss for forum non conveniens, the moving party bears the burden to produce sufficient evidence to enable the court to consider all relevant factors. (See National Football League v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 902, 926-927.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

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 CONTINUED TO NOV 10, 2020 AT 10:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2020

JULIUS CLARK VS UNICAL AVIATION, INC.

.: 19STCV46721 Hearing Date: September 23, 2020 Defendant’s motion to stay the instant proceedings is GRANTED. On December 30, 2019, Julius Clark (Plaintiff), as an aggrieved employee and private attorney general, filed a PAGA claim against Unical Aviation (Defendant). Defendant now moves to stay this action. Legal Standards “Trial courts generally have the inherent power to stay proceedings in the interests of justice and to promote judicial efficiency.” (Freiberg v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

CHANGE HEALTHCARE PRACTICE MGMT VS SCHOENGOLD

Ruling on Motion to Stay Action Pending Arbitration The Court GRANTS plaintiffs' motion to stay this action pending completion of the parties' binding contractual arbitration which has been initiated with JAMS. It is true, as defendants' argue, that the Court may not rely on Code of Civil Procedure sections 1281.2 and/or 1281.4 as the statutory authority for issuing a stay order pending arbitration because the Court has not issued an order compelling arbitration.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

MAULID AMBARY, ET AL. V. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, INC.

Defendant’s motion to stay as to Plaintiff MAULID AMBARY is granted. The Court does not reach Defendant’s demurrer. The Court takes judicial notice of Graciela Sanchez v Abbott Laboratories, Solano County Superior Court Case No. FCS054734, filed on May 4, 2020 and removed to federal court on July 17, 2020, and Graciela Sanchez v Abbott Laboratories, Eastern District Court of California 2:20-cv-01436-TLN-AC.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

ML DOE V. DOE 1, A CORP.

Motion Nos. 2 and 3: Non-Party’s (Tod Brown) Motion to Stay Deposition and Quash Deposition Subpoena to Bishop Tod Brown (Motion No. 2), filed on 8-14-20 under ROA No. 153, and Defendant (The Roman Catholic Bishop of Orange County) Joinder to Non-Party Tod Brown’s Motion to Stay Deposition and Quash Deposition, filed on 8-28-20 under ROA No. 169, are CONTINUED to 11-3-20 at 9:00 a.m. in Department C19.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

JOE C. LOURENCO VS NICOLE WILLIAMS-SMITH ET AL.

Plaintiff Joe Lourenco’s Motion to stay the entire action pending the resolution of the criminal action is GRANTED. Plaintiff to submit an order after hearing. A case management conference regarding the stay is set for November 15, 2021 at 8:30 in Dept. 10C Jayne C. Lee Judge of the Superior Court Directions for Contesting or Arguing the Tentative Ruling: Tentative rulings for Law and Motion will be posted electronically by 1:30 p.m. the day before the hearing.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Judge Jayne Lee
  • County

    San Joaquin County, CA

ALCOR LIFE EXTENSION FOUNDATION VS KARL E PILGERAM ET AL

Benjamin is the only party to file a response to Alcor’s motion to stay and asserts that the court should only stay the proceedings until October 23, 2020. ANALYSIS: A trial court has the authority to provide for the orderly conduct of proceedings before it. Code Civ. Proc. §128; California Crane School, Inc. v. National Commission for Certification of Crane Operators (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 12, 20 (it is incumbent upon trial courts to manage proceedings efficiently).

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

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

    Sep 18, 2020

HORACE WILLIAMS JR. ET AL. VS OCWEN LOAN SERVICING ET AL.

The Court also notes that the matter is on calendar for Ex Parte Proceedings for Request for Expedited Reconsideration, Motion for Extension of Time to Respond and Motion to Stay Proceedings re Mediation Setting.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

MANCIAS STEEL COMPANY VS. NOVO CONSTRUCTION

HEARING ON MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING ARBITRATION FILED BY MANCIAS STEEL COMPANY, INC. * TENTATIVE RULING: * Granted. No opposition.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

WYMONT SERVICES, LTD. V. HANDAL & ASSOCIATES

The motion to stay is advanced to 10/08/20 in this department (briefing by Code).

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

COUNTY OF ORANGE VS. GENOVESIO

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery as to Kathrine Genovesio. Although the motion is purportedly brought on behalf of Defendant Esther Kroeker as well, there is no discussion in the moving papers as to whether the stay should also affect Defendant Kroeker. Accordingly, the stay of discovery does not extend to Defendant Esther Kroeker. The Court sets an OSC re whether the stay of discovery as to Defendant Kathrine Genoviso should be lifted for 11/19/2020 at 1:30 p.m.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

COMMUNITY REBUILD PARTNERS VS. SAM CHANIN, ET AL

Pursuant to this court’s November 12, 2019 Order granting Defendants' Motion to Stay, Defendants were ordered to pay $7,000 each month, by the 5th of the month, directly to the client trust account of plaintiff’s counsel. The court further ordered that if Defendants miss a payment pending appeal, Plaintiff may seek relief from the stay by ex parte application. This order was made pursuant Code of Civil Procedure 1176.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

LORI SAMMIS VS BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS, INC.

Moving Defendant also filed a motion to stay and seeks to stay proceedings pending: (1) the determination of the motion to compel arbitration; and (2) completion of arbitration proceedings. The Court will first address the motion to compel arbitration and will then address Moving Defendant’s motion to stay.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 127     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.