What is a Motion to Stay?

Useful Rulings on Motion to Stay

Recent Rulings on Motion to Stay

76-100 of 3158 results

KULWINDER WALIA V. TIMOTHY CHEY, ET AL.

Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to stay this proceeding, demurrer, and motion to strike. II. Motion to Stay Defendants move to stay this action on the basis it should not proceed until such time as Defendants’ action against distributor Sony in Los Angeles County Superior Court is resolved. As a threshold matter, the legal basis for Defendants’ motion is unclear as is their analysis.

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

WESTBAY VS. CHATEAU AT POET'S CORNER

HEARING ON MOTION TO STAY THE ENTIRE CIVIL ACTION FILED BY CARLTON SENIOR LIVING, LLC, et al. * TENTATIVE RULING: * Defendants move to stay this action pending the hearing on their petition to compel arbitration. The motion, which is set for hearing on the same date as the petition, is denied as moot. Please see Line 9 for the ruling on the petition itself.

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

FLAHERTY VS. SEAMAN CORPORATION

Plaintiff’s objection and motion to strike Seaman’s “Appendix of Supplemental Federal Authority in Support of Motion to Stay” is SUSTAINED. For all of these reasons, the motion to stay by Seaman is GRANTED. The motion to set a trial by Flaherty is DENIED without prejudice. The Court sets an OSC re whether the stay should be lifted for April 15, 2021 at 9 a.m. The parties are directed to file a status report at least five court days prior to the hearing. Seaman to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

CHRISTOPHER HANNAN VS FUELSTER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Arbitration A party’s “bad faith” or “willful misconduct” can constitute a wavier and justify a refusal to compel arbitration. St. Agnes Medical Center v. PacifiCare of California (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1187. Writings or statements in connection with a mediation are typically inadmissible in arbitration. Cal. Evid. Code §1119(a), (b).

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT VS. SIERRA PACIFIC FARMS

The instant motion to stay would appear to be in response to the court's ruling. A trial court's inherent power to stay an action awaiting the final resolution of a related action that might have res judicata effect in the present action appears well-established. (See, e.g., Koch-Ash v. Sup. Ct. (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 689, 696. ) Sierra argues that the judgment in the CAPS/Sunshine Action could trigger the preclusive effect of the res judicata doctrine. Fidelity disagrees.

  • Hearing

    Sep 09, 2020

CESARE VIETINA VS SECURITY PACIFIC ASSOCIATES INC ET AL

On March 20, 2019, the Court granted SPA’s motion to stay the proceedings and appoint appraisers for the purpose of ascertaining the fair value of Plaintiff’s shares in the corporation. The appointment order states that the appraisers are “required to consider the value of any corporate assets and liabilities including shareholder derivative claims.” The appointment order also states that the appraisers “shall consider Madu.”

  • Hearing

    Sep 08, 2020

STEVEN JONES V. GARY CONWAY, ET AL.

On April 7, 2020, Defendants filed a motion to stay this lawsuit and compel arbitration. Plaintiff did not oppose this request, so long as this Court retained jurisdiction to the full extent permitted under Code of Civil Procedure section 1281 et seq. On July 14, 2020, this Court granted the motion to compel arbitration and stayed the action. On July 9, 2020, Plaintiff filed an application for right to attach order and an order for the issuance of a writ of attachment against Defendants. (Code Civ.

  • Hearing

    Sep 08, 2020

JOHN JACKSON VS SWISSPORT SA LLC ET AL

On January 21, 2020 the court denied the Swissport Defendants’ motion to stay this action. Further, the court denied the Original SROG Motion without prejudice on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to file a complete Separate Statement along with the Original SROG Motion. Plaintiff now moves to compel Swissport USA, Inc. (“Swissport USA”) to provide further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, numbers 2, 11, 12, 13, 33 and 34. Swissport USA opposes the motion.

  • Hearing

    Sep 08, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

PERSONNEL STAFFING GROUP, LLC VS ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, A NEW YORK CORPORATION, ET AL.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO STAY ACTION; PETITION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD On March 25, 2020, a panel of arbitrators entered an interim final award requiring Petitioner Personnel Staffing Group, LLC (“Petitioner”) to post $8.6 million in pre-hearing security.

  • Hearing

    Sep 04, 2020

STEPHANIE BROWN JACOBSON SPIES ET AL VS HRAYR SHAHINIAN MD E

On January 15, 2020 – 26 days before the motion deadline -- at the hearing on Shahinian’s ex parte application to shorten time on his motion to stay the action, the Court entered a stay on all discovery through February 26, 2020, to allow the Court to hearing the stay motion based on full briefing and on the merits. On February 26, 2020, the Court extended the stay to June 2, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Sep 04, 2020

MICHAEL NEWTON VS ADAM TENENBAUM, ET AL.

Thus, for the reasons stated above, the Court denies the petition to compel arbitration and motion to stay the proceedings. CONCLUSION AND ORDER Defendant Tenenbaum’s petition to compel arbitration and motion to stay the proceeding is denied. Defendant Tenenbaum shall provide notice of this order.

  • Hearing

    Sep 04, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

TRILOGY PLUMBING INC A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS. MEZA

The Court DENIES without prejudice Defendant Rosalba Meza’s Motion to Stay Case, or Alternatively, to Stay Discovery, Pending Resolution of the Criminal Case. The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ unopposed request for judicial notice (ROA 117) of the existence and filing of court records in this action and Defendant’s declaration in another OC court case. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 03, 2020

DAVID ALOMATSI VS KINDRED HOSPITAL

Hearing Date: September 3, 2020 Moving Parties: Plaintiff David Alomatsi Responding Party: Defendant KND Development 53, LLC dba Kindred Hospital South Bay Motion to Stay Deposition and Quash the Deposition Notice (filed on July 13, 2020) The court considered the moving and opposition (filed on August 21, 2020) papers. RULING The motion is DENIED. The court orders plaintiff to pay sanctions to defendant in the amount of $600 within 30 days.

  • Hearing

    Sep 03, 2020

JILL NIELSEN VS UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., A CORPORATION, ET AL.

.: 19STCV46278 (related to BC705695) Hearing Date: September 3, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: defendants’ motion to stay plaintiff’s declaratory relief action NOTICE Department #32 will be dark for motions. The parties are ordered to email the Court’s clerk at [email protected] to inform the clerk whether they are submitting on the Court’s tentative or whether they are requesting a hearing. If any party requests a hearing, one will be scheduled.

  • Hearing

    Sep 03, 2020

COFFIN VS MAGELLAN HRSC INC

TENTATIVE RULING Defendant's motion to stay proceedings is GRANTED without prejudice. A status conference is set for April 2, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. Preliminary Matters The parties' unopposed requests for judicial notice are granted. ROA ## 12, 30, 33. Background Defendant requests the Court to stay proceedings in this Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") action until two cases pending in New Mexico, Deakin v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 03, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

GONZALEZ, ET AL. V. FOOD MANAGEMENT PARTNERS, INC., ET AL.

MOTION TO STAY ACTION 7 A. Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice 8 Defendants request judicial notice of the following: 9 (1) The Complaint filed by Tyrell Mack against Defendants on June 28, 2019 in the 10 Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, 11 (2) The Complaint from Plaintiffs’ sister lawsuit pending in the Central District of 12 California, Gonzalez et al. v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 02, 2020

ALAN SCHOENGOLD MD PROFESSIONAL CORP., ET AL. V. KIRK GILBERT, MD

On July 10, 2020, the plaintiffs in the Ventura Action filed its motion to stay the Ventura Action pending completion of arbitration, now set for hearing on September 11, 2020. (Burgess supp. decl., ¶ 5.) On August 5, 2020, Gilbert filed his supplemental brief addressing the events occurring subsequent to the filing of this motion. On August 18, 2020, Medical Group filed its non-opposition to the motion to stay.

  • Hearing

    Aug 31, 2020

BUELAH BAETZ VS JAY CHEN, ET AL.

Motion to Stay Proceedings Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows. BACKGROUND On November 21, 2019, Plaintiff Buelah Baetz (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Jay Chen (“Defendant Chen”) and 206 New Hampshire LLC. Plaintiff alleges negligence for falling from loose carpeting and a loose banister on November 24, 2017.

  • Hearing

    Aug 31, 2020

KARSON CURTIS ET AL VS CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER ET

Khalifa filed a Motion to Stay Proceedings on November 16, 2018, which this Court denied on February 5, 2019. On March 6, 2020, Plaintiffs filed the instant Petition to Approve Compromise of Disputed Claim as to Karson Curtis. No Oppositions have been filed. Discussion PETITION TO APPROVE MINOR’S COMPROMISE Under Code of Civil Procedure section 372, any settlement of a claim made by a minor or adult with a disability must be approved by the Court.

  • Hearing

    Aug 31, 2020

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS H&R BLOCK, INC., A MISSOURI CORPORATION, ET AL.

Rice (1) Defendants’ Motion to Stay Under the Primary Jurisdiction Doctrine Moving Party: Defendants HRB Digital LLC and HRB Tax Group, Inc. Responding Party: Plaintiff the People of the State of California Ruling: Defendants’ motion to stay this action is denied. Requests for Judicial Notice Defendants’ and plaintiff’s requests for judicial notice are granted as to the existence of the documents, but not as to the truth of any of the matters asserted therein.

  • Hearing

    Aug 31, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

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

    Aug 28, 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

    Aug 28, 2020

ESTATE OF LAURENCE O PILGERAM

Nature of Proceedings: (1) Demurrer to Petition to Set aside & Vacate Judgment (2) Demurrer to Petition to Set Aside Order (3) Motion for Sanctions (4) Motion to Stay (5) Petition to Set Aside & Vacate Judgment

  • Hearing

    Aug 27, 2020

ESTATE OF LAURENCE O PILGERAM

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

  • Hearing

    Aug 27, 2020

TABATABAEE VS AMORY

Clearly, plaintiff's filing is not a proper ex parte application or noticed motion to stay. Nonetheless, it is also apparent plaintiff anticipates not being able to prepare for or appear at the hearing. Accordingly, the Court finds good cause to take these matters off calendar without prejudice to plaintiff re-noticing when appropriate. Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.1320(f) (where a party does not appear for the hearing on demurrer, the Court may take it off calendar); see also rule 3.1304, subs. (b) and (d).

  • Hearing

    Aug 27, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

  « 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.