What is a Motion to Stay?

Useful Rulings on Motion to Stay

Recent Rulings on Motion to Stay

151-175 of 3158 results

CRAIG R. GUSTAFSON, ET AL. VS COAST PACKING COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

On November 20, 2019, Defendant filed a motion to stay dissolution and appoint appraisers to fix the value of shares owned by Plaintiffs. On February 26, 2010, the court granted Defendant’s motion and set bond at $65,000. Per the court’s order, Plaintiff is to select one appraiser, Defendant is to select one appraiser, and the two appraisers will select the third appraiser.

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JUAN J. CHAVEZ, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, VS HUHTAMAKI, INC.

Defendant’s motion to stay is GRANTED. Conclusion The court exercises its discretion and grants Defendant’s motion. The instant action is ordered stayed pending a final judgment in Chavez I. Defendant is to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

CHRISTIAN GRIFFIN VS BLACK MOUNTAIN RANCH LLC [E-FILE]

The motion to stay is granted. CCP §916(a) provides "... the perfecting of an appeal stays proceedings in the trial court upon the judgment or order appealed from or upon the matters embraced therein or affected thereby. ... but the trial court may proceed upon any other matter embraced in the action and not affected by the judgment or order."

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

  • Type

    Complex

  • Sub Type

    Writ

RNR RECOVERY, INC. VS. HEALTH NET, INC.

The Court having reviewed the motion to stay these consolidated cases, and the parties’ joint status report filed July 23, 2020; the Mohases parties and Reiner Nusbaum having requested a stay in light of the criminal proceedings relating to the Mohases parties and Nusbaum; party Health Net not opposing the request for a stay, and the respective Plaintiffs taking no position with respect to the request for a stay, the Court finds good cause therefor and both actions are hereby Ordered stayed pending the criminal

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

NUTRA NOW, INC. V. DIAL RESPONSE

(“Plaintiff”), which states, in part, as follows: “Any party bringing a legal action or proceeding against any other party arising out of or relating to this Agreement must bring the legal action or proceeding in the United States District Court for the District of Utah or in any court of the state of Utah sitting in Salt Lake City.” “ ‘In California, the procedure for enforcing a forum selection clause is a motion to stay or dismiss for forum non conveniens ... , but a motion based on a forum selection clause

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

NDR PACIFIC INC. VS. HEALTH NET, INC.

The Court having reviewed the motion to stay these consolidated cases, and the parties’ joint status report filed July 23, 2020; the Mohases parties and Reiner Nusbaum having requested a stay in light of the criminal proceedings relating to the Mohases parties and Nusbaum; party Health Net not opposing the request for a stay, and the respective Plaintiffs taking no position with respect to the request for a stay, the Court finds good cause therefor and both actions are hereby Ordered stayed pending the criminal

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

DAVID EIMAN V. LION RAISINS, INC.

Motions: Defendants’ motion to stay proceedings Tentative Ruling: To impose a stay for 6 months with regard to defendant Vinson Bruce Lion only, after which the issue may be revisited. SHOULD A TIMELY REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT BE MADE, SUCH ORAL ARGUMENT WILL BE CONDUCTED AT 1:30 P.M. Explanation: The court has discretion to stay civil proceedings when the interests of justice require such action. (People v. Coleman (1975) 13 Cal.3d 867, 885; Avant! Corp. v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2020

DOLLAR SHAVE CLUB INC ET AL VS EDGEWELL PERSONAL CARE CO ET

On January 23, 2020, plaintiff filed a notice of withdrawal of its motion to stay, and Edgewell filed its cross-complaint. Based on the Connecticut court’s August 21, 2019 ruling, plaintiffs filed a motion for entry of judgment in their favor on their causes of action for declaratory relief and violation of the UCL.

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2020

GEORGE GERRO VS BLOCKFI LENDING LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

BlockFi filed a motion to stay on June 10, 2020, Plaintiff filed an opposition on July 13, 2020, and BlockFi filed a reply on July 17, 2020. Scratch filed a demurrer on June 15, 2020, Plaintiff filed an opposition on July 13, 2020, and Scratch filed a reply on July 17, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Jul 27, 2020

EXPRESS WORKING CAPITAL LLC VS. SAN WEST INC. [ENTITY NO. C3054523]

Merits The enforceability of a forum selection clause in a contract between the plaintiff and the defendant is properly raised by a motion to stay or dismiss for inconvenient forum under CCP §§410.30(a) and 418.10(a)(2). (Bushansky v. Soon-Shiong (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 1000, 1005.) Where the forum selection clause is permissive, the traditional forum non conveniens analysis applies. (Animal Film LLC v. D.E.J. Productions Inc. (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 466, 471.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 27, 2020

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

    Jul 24, 2020

JORDAN STREMFEL VS NADER KALANTAR, , M.D., ET AL.

MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS [CCP §916] MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION [CCP §1987.1] Date: 7/24/20 (8:30 AM) Case: Jordan Stremfel v. Nader Kalantar, M.D. et al. (19STCV23579) TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant Nader Kalantar, M.D.’s Motion to Stay Proceedings is GRANTED. It would appear res judicata may bar this action against Dr. Kalantar.

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

VILLEGAS VS EMPAQUE DOS AMIGOS SA DE CV

Forum Non Conveniens The following Defendants have filed a Motion to Stay/Dismiss Based upon Forum Non-Conveniens: Fortino Heredia Villegas, individually and as Trustee of The Misty Creek Trust; Grisel Franco Sepulveda; Paulina Acosta Franco; Misty Air, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and Delaware Trust Company, not in its individual capacity, but solely as Owner Trustee of the Misty Aircraft Trust . The Motion is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Jul 23, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

BAKER VS THERAGEN LLC [E-FILE]

Defendant Theragen, LLC's Motion to Stay Litigation Pending Arbitration is DENIED. (ROA 15.) This action is a representative action made under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) for alleged violations of the Labor Code. Separately, Plaintiff Vivienne Baker has also filed a putative class action against Defendant. The class action also alleges violations of the Labor Code.

  • Hearing

    Jul 23, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

DEYRA SALAZAR VS CATALINA CARPET MILLS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Defendants’ motion to stay the proceedings is DENIED. Defendants’ request for sanctions is DENIED. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED. PRELIMINARY COMMENTS: Defense counsel states that it is “telling[ that] this very same arbitration agreement has already been upheld by other courts in neighboring jurisdictions.” (Motion, p. 13:21-24.) The Court reminds defense counsel that “[a] written trial court ruling in another case has no precedential value.” (Budrow v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 23, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

NICOLE STAN, ET AL. VS PRINCESS CRUISE LINES LTD.

Black in Support of Motion to Stay or Dismiss Action for Inconvenient Forum, Exhibit 2, ¶ 15.) There is no dispute that this case arises under maritime law, and as such, federal courts have jurisdiction. (U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1.) Now, Defendant moves to stay or dismiss this action “for inconvenient forum,” pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 410.30 and 418.10(a)(2).

  • Hearing

    Jul 23, 2020

RUIZ V. FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

Motion to Stay Civil Action TENTATIVE RULING Defendant Fernandez’s unopposed motion to stay the action is granted. This court has concurrent jurisdiction over the issue of whether the court or the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board has exclusive jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim of injury while acting as Defendant’s employee. (Scott v. Indus. Accident Comm’n (1956) 46 Cal.2d 76, 83; Hollingsworth v. Superior Court (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 927, 930.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 23, 2020

PRINCESS OBIENU VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES

.: 19STCV33111 Hearing Date: July 23, 2020 Defendant’s motion to stay the instant action is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Jul 23, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

BAKER VS THERAGEN LLC [E-FILE]

Defendant Theragen, LLC's Motion to Stay Litigation Pending Arbitration is DENIED. (ROA 15.) This action is a representative action made under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) for alleged violations of the Labor Code. Separately, Plaintiff Vivienne Baker has also filed a putative class action against Defendant. The class action also alleges violations of the Labor Code.

  • Hearing

    Jul 23, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

THOMAS J HUNTER, ET AL. VS XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, ET AL.

.: 20SMCV00723 MOTION: Motion to Stay/Dismiss Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint HEARING DATE: 7/23/2020 Defendants argue that the Court should dismiss or stay this action for two reasons. First, Defendants argue that the Court determined this matter to be an “eviction case,” and due to the moratorium on evictions, the case must be dismissed. Second, Defendants argue that they are entitled to a stay based on due process protections under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

  • Hearing

    Jul 23, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

DEYRA SALAZAR VS CATALINA CARPET MILLS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Defendants’ motion to stay the proceedings is DENIED. Defendants’ request for sanctions is DENIED. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED. PRELIMINARY COMMENTS: Defense counsel states that it is “telling[ that] this very same arbitration agreement has already been upheld by other courts in neighboring jurisdictions.” (Motion, p. 13:21-24.) The Court reminds defense counsel that “[a] written trial court ruling in another case has no precedential value.” (Budrow v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 23, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

SHAFFER, ET AL. V. RICE RANCH COMMUNITY, LLC

Nature of Proceedings: Motion to Stay The court has read the motion to stay, filed by defendants Rice Ranch Community, LLC, and Shea Homes Limited Partnership, asking the court to stay the lawsuit and direct the parties to comply with the nonadversarial prelitigation procedures outlined in the “Supplemental Master Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions and Agreement Establishing Dispute Resolution Procedures for Rich Ranch[,]” (hereafter, ADR Declaration), as incorporated into the “Purchase and Sale Agreement

  • Hearing

    Jul 21, 2020

CHRISTIAN V. PRICE

Again, however, this decision was not made in the context of a motion to strike, but rather a motion to stay the declaratory relief action. (Ibid.) Thus, the cases cited by defendant do not support his position that a claim for declaratory relief can be properly stricken from the complaint simply because the claim may duplicate the relief sought in other causes of action.

  • Hearing

    Jul 21, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

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

On May 18, 2020, Respondents filed this motion to stay. On June 18, 2020, Petitioner filed an amended petition to vacate. As a preliminary matter, Petitioner argues that the Court should grant its petition to vacate because Respondents did not timely oppose the petition. (Opposition at p. 15.) But Petitioner filed an amended petition on June 18, 2020, which supersedes Petitioner’s original petition, while Respondents’ motion was pending.

  • Hearing

    Jul 21, 2020

HOWARD FUCHS VS JOEL WERTMAN ET AL

The alleged facts relating to the timing of the Deed of Trust occurring shortly after the Court denied Defendant’s motion to stay enforcement of the sister state judgment do suggest Defendant recorded the Deed of Trust at a moment he reasonably believed that debts that he had previously incurred would become due in amounts beyond his ability to pay them.

  • Hearing

    Jul 21, 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.