What is a Motion to Stay?

Useful Rulings on Motion to Stay

Recent Rulings on Motion to Stay

176-200 of 3172 results

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

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

COMMUNITY REBUILD PARTNERS VS. SAM CHANIN, ET AL

discussion 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

    Jul 17, 2020

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ALFARO VS WHEEL PROS LLC

Motion to Stay The court grants defendant’s motion to stay pending arbitration (Civ. Proc., § 1281.4.). The court sets a status conference for January 26, 2021 at 1:30 PM in Department CX 101. The parties are ordered to file a Joint Status Conference Statement 5 court days before the January 26 conference updating the court as to the status of the arbitration.

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 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

    Jul 17, 2020

CYNTHIA MARIA RIBAS VS BEAU MONDE ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

Moreover, as set forth in a separate ruling, this Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to stay the instant proceedings, pending a final determination on appeal. As such, any motions for attorneys fees are stayed at this time. It is so ordered. Dated: July ___, 2020 Hon. Jon R.

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2020

IBARRA VS. TECHNET PARTNERS, INC.

After Defendant objected to the deposition notices and refused to produce their witnesses for depositions until after the Court heard Defendant’s motion to stay the action, Plaintiff contends he had no choice but to file this motion with trial then set to commence on 5/11/2020. Defendant contends the motion is not yet ripe because neither Auten nor Humphrey failed to appear at their deposition. In addition, the deposition should not proceed until after the Court ruled on Defendant’s motion to stay.

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2020

DW VS COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

Defendants' motion to stay the action is denied. Defendants have failed to demonstrate good cause for the stay or any limitation on going forward with discovery as to these state claims.

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

RAY DAVID SHIPMAN, III VS KOI CBD, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

The Motion to Stay this Action is therefore DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

POLANCO VS. LYFT, INC.,

It also appears that Plaintiff would not be unduly prejudiced since the Solis Action will likely be concluded in few months Thus, Lyft’s Motion to Stay is GRANTED. The Court sets an OSC re whether the stay should be lifted on January 14, 2021 at 9 a.m. Should the Solis Action be resolved earlier, any party may contact the clerk of the Court and ask to advance the OSC. Moving party to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2020

LONG BONETTI OFFICE, LLC V. HAMISH MARSHALL

And while Defendants have filed a contemporaneous motion to stay the proceedings, they have not cited to any authority which limits the Court’s inherent power under section 128(a)(5) to control the judicial proceeding before it. That power includes determining whether counsel is prohibited from representing a party in matters before this Court, such as arguing the merits of the pending motions to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings.

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2020

CIHAK VS KAVEH GORGANI AS THE SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF AMY CATHARINE KILLPACK AKA AMY CATHERINE CIHAK AKA AMY C CIHAK

Regarding the related motion to stay this action based on the rule of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction, this rule "provides that when two superior courts have concurrent jurisdiction over the subject matter and all parties involved in litigation, the first to assume jurisdiction has exclusive and continuing jurisdiction over the subject matter and all parties involved until such time as all necessarily related matters have been resolved." California Union Ins. Co. v. Trinity River Land Co., supra at 109.

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

BAILEY VS. BNSF RAILWAY

HEARING ON MOTION TO STAY OR DISMISS BASED ON FORUM NON CONVENIENS FILED BY BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY * TENTATIVE RULING: * The motion of defendant BNSF Railway Company to stay or dismiss this action based on forum non conveniens is granted to the extent and on the conditions described below.

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

RONALDI VS DOCUMENT SECURITY SYSTEMS

"The enforceability of a forum selection clause is properly raised by a motion to stay or dismiss under Code of Civil Procedure section 410.30, as it is a request to the court to decline jurisdiction." (Furda v. Superior Court (1984) 161 Cal.App.3d 418, 425.) "The California Supreme Court has held that forum selection clauses are given effect in this state, absent a showing that enforcement would be unfair or unreasonable." (Id.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Contract - Other

JEFFREY FRASCO, ET AL. VS DOMAEN LTD., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

As discussed above, the Court grants the motion to compel arbitration as to the Domaen Defendants only, thus the motion to stay is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

  « 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.