A stay order suspends all proceedings in the action to which it applies. (Rules of Court, Rule 3.515(h).) “Trial courts generally have the inherent power to stay proceedings in the interests of justice and to promote judicial efficiency.” (Freiberg v. City of Mission Viejo (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1489.) Trial judges have inherent powers to manage and fashion procedures to control litigation to insure the orderly administration of justice. (Cottle v. Super. Ct. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1367, 1376-79.)

How to Structure the Motion

A motion to stay a pending matter may be brought by any party to the action, whether or not that party is a party to an arbitration agreement. (Marcus v. Super. Ct. (1977) 75 Cal.App.3d 204, 210.)

A motion for a stay of proceedings must,

1. List all known pending related cases;
2. State whether the stay order should extend to any such related case; and
3. Be supported by a memorandum and by declarations establishing the facts relied on to show that a stay order is necessary and appropriate to effectuate the purposes of coordination.

(Rules of Court, Rule 3.515(b).)

“A stay order may be issued with or without a hearing. A party filing a motion for a stay order or opposition thereto may request a hearing to determine whether the stay order should be granted. A request for hearing should be made at the time the requesting party files the motion or opposition. If the coordination motion judge grants the request for a hearing, the requesting party must provide notice.” Cal. Rules of Court 3.515(e).

Ex Parte Filing

Petitioners may request a stay on an ex parte basis. In order to obtain ex parte relief, Appellants “must make an affirmative factual showing in a declaration containing competent testimony based on personal knowledge of irreparable harm, immediate danger, or any other statutory basis for granting relief ex parte.” (California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1202(c).)

Unlawful Detainer

There is no automatic stay of an unlawful detainer judgment upon the filing of an appeal. Instead, the party seeking a stay of the judgment must file an application in the trial court and show, with supporting evidence, compelling reasons why the court should issue a stay while the appeal is pending. Code of Civil Procedure § 1176(a) provides, in relevant part: “An appeal taken by the defendant [in an unlawful detainer action] shall not automatically stay proceedings upon the judgment. . . . Stay of judgment shall be granted when the court finds that the moving party will suffer extreme hardship in the absence of a stay and that the nonmoving party will not be irreparably injured by its issuance. . . . If the trial or appellate court stays enforcement of the judgment, the court may condition the stay on whatever conditions the court deems just, but in any case it shall order the payment of the reasonable monthly rental value to the court monthly in advance as rent would otherwise become due as a condition of issuing the stay of enforcement. . . .” Additionally, the moving party must show that a substantial question will be raised on the appeal. (Mehr v. Superior Court (1983) 139 Cal.App.3d 1044, 1050.)

Unlimited Action Concerning Title to the Property

“When an unlawful detainer proceeding and an unlimited action concerning title to the property are simultaneously pending, the trial court in which the unlimited action is pending may stay the unlawful detainer action until the issue of title is resolved in the unlimited action, or it may consolidate the actions. If it does neither and instead tries the issue of title under the summary procedures that constrain unlawful detainer proceedings, the parties’ right to a full trial of the issue of title may be unfairly expedited and limited. If complex issues of title are tried in the unlawful detainer proceeding, the proceeding loses its summary character; defects in the plaintiff’s title ‘are neither properly raised in this summary proceeding for possession, nor are they concluded by the judgment.’” (Martin-Bragg v. Moore (Aug. 1, 2013, B238772) 2013 Cal.App. Lexis 704, *35-*36.)

The Court’s Decision

“When an action is brought in a court of this state involving the same parties and the same subject matter as an action already pending in a court of another jurisdiction, a stay of the California proceedings is not a matter of right, but within the sound discretion of the trial court.” (Farmland v. Irr. Co. v. Dopplmaier (1957) 48 Cal.2d 208, 215; see also Bains v. Moores (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 445, 480.)

California courts have broad discretion to stay their own proceedings in favor of a previously-filed action involving the same subject matter. (Century Indemnity Co. v. Bank of America, 58 Cal.App.4th at 411.) In exercising its discretion, the Court should consider:

1. the importance of avoiding unseemly conflicts with the courts of other jurisdictions;
2. whether the rights of the parties can best be determined by the court of the other jurisdiction because of the nature of the subject matter, the availability of witnesses, or the stage to which the proceedings in the other court have already advanced; and
3. the importance of discouraging duplicative litigation designed solely to harass an adverse party.

(Century Indemnity Co. v. Bank of America, 58 Cal.App.4th at 411.)

“In ruling on a motion for a stay order, the assigned judge must determine whether the stay will promote the ends of justice, considering the imminence of any trial or other proceeding that might materially affect the status of the action to be stayed, and whether a final judgment in that action would have a res judicata or collateral estoppel effect with regard to any common issue of the included actions.” Cal. Rules of Court 3.515(f).

“Convenience of the courts is best served when motions to stay proceedings are discouraged.” (Avant! v. Super. Ct. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 876, 888.) “California courts are guided by the strong principle that any elapsed time other than that reasonably required for pleadings and discovery is unacceptable and should be eliminated. To that end, courts must control the pace of litigation, reduce delay, and maintain a current docket so as to enable the just, expeditious, and efficient resolution of cases.” (In re Alpha Media Resort Investment Cases (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 1121.)

Petition to Coordinate

Actions are not automatically stayed upon the filing of a petition to coordinate, but they may be stayed by the coordination motion judge. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.515.)

Variety of Stays

Stay of a Duplicate Action

“Granting a stay in a case where the issues in two actions are substantially identical is a matter addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. ‘In exercising its discretion the court should consider the importance of discouraging multiple litigation designed solely to harass an adverse party, and of avoiding unseemly conflicts with the courts of other jurisdictions. It should also consider whether the rights of the parties can best be determined by the court of the other jurisdiction because of the nature of the subject matter, the availability of witnesses, or the stage to which the proceedings in the other court have already advanced.’” Thomson v. Continental Ins. Co. (1967) 66 Cal.2d 746–747.

Stay in Light of Arbitration

Code of Civil Procedure, section 1281.4 provides that “[i]f a court of competent jurisdiction, whether in this State or not, has ordered arbitration of a controversy which is an issue involved in an action or proceeding pending before a court of this State, the court in which such action or proceeding is pending shall, upon motion of a party to such action or proceeding, stay the action or proceeding until an arbitration is had in accordance with the order to arbitrate or until such earlier time as the court specifies.” Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.4; see also Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2; Cardiff Equities, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1541, 1551.

Stay of Civil Actions when Parallel Criminal Actions are Pending

The court may stay discovery until disposition of any pending criminal proceedings or until the statute of limitations has run on criminal prosecution, so that defendant can no longer claim a 5th Amendment privilege. (Klein v. Super. Ct. (1988) 198 Cal.3d 894, 905.) Any party or witness in a discovery proceeding may claim the 5th Amendment privilege against disclosure of information that might tend to incriminate him or her under either federal or state law. (Zonver v. Super. Ct. (1969) 270 Cal.2d 613, 620-621.) To alleviate a party’s difficult choice between defending the civil or criminal case, a party objecting to discovery is generally entitled to a stay of discovery in the civil action pending disposition of the criminal matter “when both civil and criminal proceedings arise out of the same or related transactions.” (Pacers, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 686, 690.) Such a stay is discretionary; defendant has no right to a blanket stay on 5th Amendment grounds. (Klein v. Super. Ct. (1988) 198 Cal.3d 894, 905.)

“Even where the civil discovery process is directed against an individual defendant who is also a defendant in a related criminal case, the Ninth Circuit has held that ‘[t]he Constitution does not ordinarily require a stay of civil proceedings pending the outcome of criminal proceedings.’ (Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision (9th Cir. 1995) 45 F.3d 322, 324.) Keating observed that the question of whether a civil proceeding should be stayed pending the outcome of a parallel criminal proceeding often rests not on the constitutional issue of self-incrimination, but on the issue of abuse of discretion. ‘In the absence of substantial prejudice to the rights of the parties involved, [simultaneous] parallel [civil and criminal] proceedings are unobjectionable under our jurisprudence.’ ‘Nevertheless, a court may decide in its discretion to stay civil proceedings... ‘when the interests of justice seem[] to require such action.’” (Avant! Corp. v. Super. Ct. (2000) 79 Cal. App. 4th 876, 885.)

The court enumerated the factors to be considered in determining whether or not to stay the action. (Avant! Corp. v. Super. Ct. (2000) 79 Cal.4th 876, 885.) These factors include,

1. the interest of the plaintiffs in proceeding expeditiously with this litigation or any particular aspect of it, and the potential prejudice to plaintiffs of a delay;
2. the burden which any particular aspect of the proceedings may impose on defendants;
3. the convenience of the court in the management of its cases, and the efficient use of judicial resources;
4. the interests of persons not parties to the civil litigation; and
5. the interest of the public in the pending civil and criminal litigation.

(Avant! Corp. v. Super. Ct. (2000) 79 Cal.4th 876, 885.)

Stay of Civil Actions and Appeals

Code of Civil Procedure, section 916(a) stays proceedings in the trial court “upon the judgment or order appealed from or upon the matters embraced therein or affected thereby, including enforcement of the judgment or order, but the trial court may proceed upon any other matter embraced in the action and not affected by the judgment or order.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 916(a).) “The purpose of the automatic stay provision of section 916, subdivision (a) ‘is to protect the appellate court's jurisdiction by preserving the status quo until the appeal is decided.’” (Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino (2005) 35 Cal.4th 180, 189.) A proceeding “affects the effectiveness of an appeal if the possible outcomes on appeal and the actual or possible results of the proceeding are irreconcilable.” (Varian Medical Systems, Inc., supra, 35 Cal.4th at 190.)

“[A]n appeal does not stay proceedings on ‘ancillary or collateral matters which do not affect the judgment [or order] on appeal’ even though the proceedings may render the appeal moot.” (Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino (2005) 35 Cal.4th 180, 191.) Some proceedings, such as motion for new trial or motion to expunge lis pendens, are ancillary by law; other post-order proceedings may also be ancillary or collateral if the proceeding “could or would have occurred regardless of the outcome of the appeal.” (Ibid.)

Stay of California Actions when Parallel Federal Actions are Pending

“[W]hen a federal action has been filed covering the same subject matter as is involved in a California action, the California court has the discretion but not the obligation to stay the state court action. In exercising its discretion the court should consider the importance of discouraging multiple litigation designed solely to harass an adverse party, and of avoiding unseemly conflicts with the courts of other jurisdictions. It should also consider whether the rights of the parties can best be determined by the court of the other jurisdiction because of the nature of the subject matter, the availability of witnesses, or the stage to which the proceedings in the other court have already advanced. The California Supreme Court also has isolated another critical factor favoring a stay of the state court action in favor of the federal action.... the federal action is pending in California not some other state.” (Caiafa Prof. Law Corp. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 800, 803-804.)

Administrative Records

Stays are frequently requested before the challenged decision has gone into effect, and before the administrative record has been prepared. As a leading treatise on civil writ practice notes, “If the writ proceeding is based on an administrative record, the record often will not yet be prepared when the writ petition is filed and a stay is sought.” (1 California Civil Writ Practice (Cont. Ed. Bar 4th Ed.) ¶ 6.14.)

Administrative Order or Decision

Application for stay is made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, subdivision (g). “Except as provided in subdivision (h), the court in which proceedings under this section are instituted may stay the operation of the administrative order or decision pending the judgment of the court, or until the filing of a notice of appeal from the judgment or until the expiration of the time for filing the notice, whichever occurs first. However, no such stay shall be imposed or continued if the court is satisfied that it is against the public interest.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1094.5(g).) Subdivision (h) applies where a state agency conducts a hearing required to be conducted under the Administrative Procedure Act. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1094.5(h)(1).) Subdivision (h) does not apply to a hearing before a municipal civil service commission. (Hansen v. Civil Service Board (1957) 147 Cal.App.2d 732, 734.) “The application for the stay shall be accompanied by proof of service of a copy of the application on the respondent. Service shall be made in the manner provided by Title 4.5 (commencing with Section 405) of Part 2 or Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 1010) of Title 14 of Part 2.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1094.5(g).)

Mechanics’ Liens

The California Arbitration Act expressly recognizes that arbitration is appropriate in actions to foreclose mechanics’ liens. A lien claimant can file an action along with an application for stay pending arbitration or a statement of intent to file such an application within 30 days. CCP § 1281.5(a). A defendant waives her right to arbitrate if she answers the complaint without filing a petition to compel arbitration pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1281.2. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.5(c).)

Construction-Related Accessibility Claims

Under Civil Code §§ 55.54(d)(4)(B) and 55.545(c)(2), a defendant may request a stay of proceedings based on a connected request for an early evaluation conference on the ground that the site at issue has been inspected by a Certified Access Specialist (“CASp”). The defendant must serve a copy of the CASp report at least 15 days before the date set for the early evaluation conference.

Civil Code section 55.54(b) provides, in pertinent part:

1. Notwithstanding any other law, upon being served with a summons and complaint asserting a construction-related accessibility claim, including, but not limited to, a claim brought under Section 51, 54, 54.1, or 55, a qualified defendant, or other defendant as defined in paragraph (2), may file a request for a court stay and early evaluation conference in the proceedings of that claim prior to or simultaneous with that defendant's responsive pleading or other initial appearance in the action that includes the claim. If that defendant filed a timely request for stay and early evaluation conference before a responsive pleading was due, the period for filing a responsive pleading shall be tolled until the stay is lifted. Any responsive pleading filed simultaneously with a request for stay and early evaluation conference may be amended without prejudice, and the period for filing that amendment shall be tolled until the stay is lifted.
2. This subdivision shall also apply to a defendant if any of the following apply:… (D)The defendant is a business that has been served with a complaint filed by a high-frequency litigant, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 425.55 of the Code of Civil Procedure, asserting a construction-related accessibility claim, including, but not limited to, a claim brought under Section 51, 54, 54.1, or 55.”

Civil Code § 55.54 provides further information in connection with the conduct of an early evaluation conference and stays.

Military Service

If the defendant is in military service, the court must stay proceedings for at least 90 days if the court determines there may be a defense to the action that requires defendant's presence. (50 USC App., §§ 521(d), 522(b).) The court may extend that stay for up to the duration of defendant's military service plus 90 days upon a showing that military duty continues to affect defendant's ability to appear. (50 USC App., §§ 521(d), 525(a).)