What is a Motion to Stay?

Useful Rulings on Motion to Stay

Rulings on Motion to Stay

51-75 of 3221 results

MICHELLE CHARLES VS. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK ET AL

Notice Of Motion And Motion To Stay Proceedings Matter on calendar for Tuesday, April 18, 2017, Line 3, DEFENDANT JPMORGAN CHASE BANK Motion To Stay Proceedings. Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.'s motion to stay proceedings is granted. The case is stayed until the conclusion of the Henderson case in federal court or further order of this court. No opposition filed.

  • Hearing

TIMOTHY AJAEGBU VS. LYFT, INC. ET AL

Notice Of Joinder And Defendant Telyans Joinder In Defendant Lyft, Incs Motion To Stay Litigation Matter on calendar for Wednesday, October 26, 2016, Line 6, DEFENDANT HARRISON TELYAN Joinder And Defendant Telyans Joinder In Defendant Lyft, Inc.'s Motion To Stay Litigation. Defendant Telyan's joinder in the motion to stay litigation is granted. No opposition filed.

  • Hearing

JORDAN ROSENBERG VS. PGE, INC. ET AL

Motion To Stay Proceedings Including Declaration Matter on calendar for Monday, May 7, 2018, Line 9, PLAINTIFF JORDAN ROSENBERG Motion To Stay Proceedings. Plaintiff Jordan Rosenberg's motion to stay proceedings pending conclusion of his appeal is granted. This case is now stayed until conclusion of the appeal or further court order. Defendant Pacific Gas & Electric Company does not oppose a stay.

  • Hearing

SYERSS PROPERTIES I,LLP A CALIFORNIA LIMITED VS. BANC OF AMERICA INVESTMENT SERVICES INC A ET AL

Notice Of Petition To Compel Arbitration; And 2) Motion To Stay Proceedings; Compendium Of Non California Authroites Set for hearing on Thursday, October 22, 2009, line 10, DEFENDANTS BANC OF AMERICA INVESTMENT SERVICES, INC., BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., AND, BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION Notice Of Petition To Compel Arbitration; and, 2) Motion To Stay Proceedings. Motion to compel arbitration granted. Motion to stay proceedings granted.

  • Hearing

IN RE: ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION

Motion To Stay Case Pending Resolution Of Similar Litigation In Federal Court Matter on Calendar for Thursday, October 29, 2015, Line 2. RESPONDENT OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S Motion To Stay Case Pending Resolution Of Similar Litigation In Federal Court (Part 1 of 2) Motion to stay granted in part and denied in part. Respondent's motion to stay the present matter pending the resolution of Electronic Frontier Foundation v. U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Dist. Ct., No. Dist. Of Cal.

  • Hearing

KOOSHAREM LLC V. SSST HOLDINGS LLC

If the motion to stay is granted, the discovery motions would become moot for the present. If not, then there is a better-developed record to rule on the motions to compel.

  • Hearing

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, A MUNICIPAL ET AL VS. JIE QIN ZHOU ET AL

Notice Of Motion And Motion To Stay Action Matter on Calendar for Tuesday, May 16, 2017, Line 19, DEFENDANTs JIE ZHOU, QUEEN'S HEALTH CENTER, INC.'s Motion To Stay Action.

  • Hearing

ROGER MANLIN VS JEAN ELIZABETH JOHNSTON

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY THE ACTION PENDING THE RESOLUTION OF THE MARITAL DISSOLUTION ACTION The Court originally continued the instant motion to stay so that a settlement enforcement hearing in the marital dissolution action between Plaintiff Roger Manlin and his wife, Geraldine Manlin, currently pending in Department 81, could first be resolved.

  • Hearing

KORNIEVSKY VS. SMITH LINDEN & BASSO, LLP

s Motion to Stay Action Pursuant to CCP Section 1281.4 Pending Resolution of Arbitration Motion to Stay This motion to stay brought by Plaintiff Kornievsky et al is based on essentially the same arguments as the motion in the related action of Barrons v.Smith Linden & Basso, LLP, OCSC case no. 2013-00648240. For the same reasons set forth in the Court’s ruling in the Barrons motion, the motion of Plaintiffs George M. Kornievsky and Carol A.

  • Hearing

DANNY IBARRA ET AL VS JOHN G MCCANDLESS

DISCUSSION On September 19, 2019, the Court heard Defendant’s motion to stay proceedings. The Court continued the hearing on the motion to stay and ordered Plaintiffs to file and serve a motion for leave to amend their complaint by 5:00 p.m. on September 27, 2019 and to set it for hearing on November 1, 2019, along with Defendant’s motion to stay. (Minute Order, 09/11/19.) Plaintiffs have failed to file and serve a motion for leave to amend their complaint and to set it for hearing on November 1, 2019.

  • Hearing

FIRST SPECIALTY INSURANCE CORPORATION VS. PEAK ENGINEERING INC ET AL

Notice Of Motion And Motion To Stay Pltf'S Declaraory Relief Action Pending Resolution Of Underlying Third Party Lawsuit, Or In The Alternative, To Stay Discovery SET FOR HEARING ON THURSDAY, AUGUST 2, 2007, LINE 10. DEFENDANT PEAK ENGINEERING, INC.'S Motion To Stay PLAINTIFF'S Declaratory Relief Action Pending Resolution Of Underlying Third Party Lawsuit, Or In The Alternative, To Stay Discovery: MOTION TO STAY IS GRANTED. PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TAKES INCONSISTENT POSITIONS.

  • Hearing

DANNY IBARRA ET AL VS JOHN G MCCANDLESS

Motion to Stay Proceedings Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows. BACKGROUND On April 21, 2017, Plaintiffs Danny Ibarra and Miriam Ibarra (“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendant John G. McCandless (“Defendant”) alleging motor vehicle and general negligence for an automobile collision that occurred on December 17, 2015. On August 21, 2019, Defendant filed a motion to stay proceedings pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 128.

  • Hearing

LINX CARD INC VS STEWART MCCRAY ET AL

Defendants’ Motion to Stay Action is GRANTED. Defendants’ Demurrer is placed off calendar. I.

  • Hearing

PENTERMAN FARMING CO., INC. V. BECKSTOFFER VINEYARD, INC., ET AL.

(1) MOTION TO STAY TENTATIVE RULING: Defendants Beckstoffer Vineyards (erroneously sued as Beckstoffer Vineyard, Inc.) and David Michul’s renewed motion to stay the proceedings is GRANTED. Non-party George Altamura and plaintiff commenced arbitration on March 19, 2019. (Greenwood-Meinert Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. C.)

  • Hearing

DIANE LOWENSTEIN ET AL VS. ROBERT REINKING ET AL

MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS Set for hearing on the Law and Motion Calendar for Wednesday, December 6, 2017, line 11. DEFENDANT ROBERT REINKING'S MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS. Defendant Robert Reinking's motion to stay civil proceedings pending the resolution of the criminal case is continued to February 27, 2018. On that date, assuming reasonable expedition by Mr.

  • Hearing

DILUIGI VS HORN

Motion: Motion to Stay Proceedings Moving Party: Defendant Jack Horn, jr. aka Jack Junior and Tom Horn, Responding Party: Plaintiff Eugene Diluigi RULING: Motion: Motion to Stay Proceedings. Moving Party: Defendant Jack Horn, Jr. aka Jack Junior and Tom Horn. Responding Party: Plaintiff Eugene Diluigi. Ruling: Defendant’s Motion to Stay Proceedings is granted in part. Any and all discovery against Defendant in the instant civil action is stayed for six months. (See Pacers Inc. v.

  • Hearing

CROWN BUILDING MAINTENANCE, INC., A BUILDING VS. SBM SITE SERVICES, LLC, AN OREGON LIMITED ET AL

Notice And Motion To Stay Action Pursuant To Ccp 410.30(A) Set for hearing on Monday, November 7, 2011, Line 9. PLAINTIFF CROWN BUILDING MAINTENANCE, INC.'S NOTICE AND MOTION TO STAY ACTION PURSUANT TO CCP 4l0.30(A). Denied.

  • Hearing

WAGH VS METRIS DIRECT INC

MOTION To Stay Action; Request For Judicial Notice MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS GRANTED. (NH)

  • Hearing

KRIS COX VS. MICHAEL FOODY ET AL

Notice Of Motion And Motion To Stay Set for hearing on Thursday, September 1, 2016, Line 5, DEFENDANTS JOHN BRIGGS, MICHAEL FOODY, MARIANNE O'CONNOR AND MARK WARD'S Motion To Stay. Defendants' motion to stay is granted. While not a model of clarity (or poetry), the bylaws agreed to by the parties require that the parties' dispute be resolved at the location of the property at issue, which is in Mexico.

  • Hearing

***TRANSFFERED TO ORANGE COUNTY***MEA FORENSIC SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS, INC. VS. SPENCER PATTEN ET AL

Notice Of Motion And Motion To Stay Or Dismiss The Action On The Gorund Of Inconvenient Forum Matter on calendar for Thursday, April 26, 2018, Line 8, DEFENDANT SPENCER SMITH'S Notice Of Motion And Motion To Stay Or Dismiss The Action On The Gorund Of Inconvenient Forum. Smith's motion to stay or dismiss is treated is a motion to change venue and GRANTED. No opposition filed. The court transfers this action to Orange County pursuant to the venue selection clause.

  • Hearing

BONNIE R FADAVI VS. SEVERSON & WERSON ET AL

MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS DEFENDANT SEVERSON & WERSON, MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS GRANTED-NO OPPOSITION FILED.(302/REQ/JU)

  • Hearing

NICHOLAS PARSZIK ET AL VS JORDAN RIVERS ET AL

CASE NO: BC635136 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT AND MOTION TO STAY ACTION Dept. 98 1:30 p.m.

  • Hearing

ABDUL AZEEM BUKSH VS. UNITED AIR LINES, INC ET AL

MOTION To Stay Proceedings PLAINTIFF ABDUL AZEEM BUKSH, MOTION To Stay Proceedings GRANT-PER STATEMENT OF NO-OPPOSITION.(302/REQ)

  • Hearing

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS. ALLEGHENY CASUALTY COMPANY ET AL

Notice Of Motion To Stay Enforcement Of Summary Judgment MOTION TO STAY ENFORCEMENT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT DENIED. NO AUTHORITY FOR REQUESTED RELIEF. (PB)

  • Hearing

RICHARD SIMERLY VS CHILDRENS HOSPITAL LOS ANGELES

Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay On January 23, 2019, Plaintiff filed his motion to stay. Citing CCP § 1281.4, Heritage Provider Network, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1146, 1152, and Seidman & Seidman v. Wolfson (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 826, Plaintiff argues this case should be stayed pending the arbitration between Plaintiff and non-party USC.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

  « 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.