What is a Motion to Stay?

Useful Rulings on Motion to Stay

Recent Rulings on Motion to Stay

101-125 of 3172 results

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

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

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

YC073016 Fair Financial Corporation’s Motion to Stay Arbitration Pending Resolution of State Court Action TENTATIVE RULING Fair Financial Corporation’s (“Fair”) Motion to Stay Arbitration Pending Resolution of State Court Action is denied. Objections Declaration of Ivette Zamora: Objections 1, 2, and 4 are sustained. Objection 3 is overruled. Declaration of Jordan Mott: Objection 1 is sustained.

  • 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

MYRA DELEON, AS AN INDIVIDUAL AND ON BEHALF OF ALL SIMILARLY SITUATED EMPLOYEES VS DENNY'S INC.

Because the Class Action will likely have issue preclusion consequences on this action, Denny’s motion to stay the instant action is granted.

  • Hearing

    Aug 26, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

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

    Aug 26, 2020

DIANE HIGHTREE V. AMPLIFY, LTD.

The additional time to permit the filing of a motion to stay will also permit the federal court to resolve the issues now pending in the Federal Action, which resolution may have a bearing on further proceedings in this action. Similarly, Vanden Berge has not previously had standing to file formal opposition to the motion for preliminary approval. Vanden Berge may now file formal opposition. Consequently, the Court will continue the motion for preliminary approval.

  • Hearing

    Aug 25, 2020

MOHAMMAD RAHMANI NEJAD VS HOSSEIN F BERENJI, ET AL.

Therefore, the court finds that a one-hour reduction of the time spent here is appropriate. 12. 11/07/19 Appearance for motion to stay action and compel arbitration - $1,050.00 (Goodman Decl. Ex. 4.) Plaintiff asserts that this time is not recoverable because the hearing on the motion to compel arbitration did not occur.

  • Hearing

    Aug 25, 2020

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

RICHARD LOSCALZO VS SHANE LOOMIS, ET AL.

Defendants’ motion to stay the proceedings is GRANTED. PRELIMINARY COMMENTS: As indicated below, the Court is granting the motion to compel arbitration. The attorney-client retainer agreement at issue in this case requires that “the arbitration shall comply with and be governed by the provisions of the Ventura County Bar Association.” The gravamen of Plaintiff’s action is legal malpractice, not a fee dispute.

  • Hearing

    Aug 21, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

HOKANSON VS NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION

Motion to Stay NGSC requests a stay of this action pending its arbitration because the issues in this case would overlap with the issues subject to arbitration. It cites Franco v. Arakelian Enterprises, Inc. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 947 (Franco) and CCP §1281.4. Franco is distinguishable because that case involved both class and PAGA claims. (Id. at pp. 951-952.) Here, this case only involves a PAGA claim. Plaintiff is not bringing the action as a class representative.

  • Hearing

    Aug 21, 2020

STEPHANIE BROWN JACOBSON SPIES ET AL VS HRAYR SHAHINIAN MD E

Accordingly, the motion to stay is DENIED. Plaintiffs’ counsel in each case is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling to the parties in that action.

  • Hearing

    Aug 21, 2020

MARY KAY RADAVICH ET AL VS HRAYR K SHAHINIAN ET AL

Accordingly, the motion to stay is DENIED. Plaintiffs’ counsel in each case is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling to the parties in that action.

  • Hearing

    Aug 21, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

THOMPSON VS. STIPETIK

Defendant Stipetic’s motion to stay plaintiff Thompson’s civil action pending resolution of criminal proceedings against moving party. Notice of non-opposition. Motion granted in part and denied in part. The motion is granted with respect to any and all discover directed to Stipetic through 1/4/20. All other discovery as to Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Thompson, witnesses, third parties, documents and similar matters is not stayed. (See, Fuller v. Superior Court (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 299, 308 to 309).

  • Hearing

    Aug 21, 2020

WIENER VS. PEREZ [EFILE]

In light of this ruling, the ALTERNATIVE MOTION TO STAY OR DISMISS THE ACTION ON THE GROUND OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS is moot. Defendants Rafael Gama Perez and Christine Louise Wiener are citizens and residents of Mexico. Neither own any property or assets here. Neither work nor own any business here. Mr. Gama is a Mexican attorney who represented plaintiff's [now-deceased] father to assist him with his Mexican business affairs and property.

  • Hearing

    Aug 20, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  « 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.