What is a Motion to Stay Execution?

A court has the power to stay execution of a judgment where the judgment debtor has another action pending on a disputed claim against the judgment creditor. (Erlich v. Super. Ct. (1965) 63 Cal.2d 551 [47 Cal.Rptr. 473, 407 P.2d 649].) “The rationale for this rule is based on equitable principles for to hold otherwise unfairly deprives the judgment debtor of not only his right of set-off, but with an impecunious creditor, the right to receive any recovery whatsoever.” (Id. at p. 555.)

Legal Standard

The trial court may stay the enforcement of any judgment or order. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 918(a).) This seemingly global power, however, has limits. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 917.1(a)(2).) Money judgments for statutory costs can only be effectively stayed with the filing of an undertaking; otherwise, trial courts can only give brief (10 day) stays. (Sharifpour v. Le (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 730, 733-734.)

The trial court has broad discretion to order a stay of enforcement. (Erlich v. Super. Ct. (1965) 63 Cal.2d 551, 556.) In exercising its discretion to stay the enforcement of a judgment, the court must consider the likelihood of the judgment debtor prevailing in the other action and the financial ability of the judgment creditor to satisfy a judgment on the disputed claim if such should be rendered. (Airfloor Co. of California, Inc. v. Regents of University of California (1979) 97 Cal.App.3d 739, 741.)

Useful Rulings on Motion to Stay Execution

Recent Rulings on Motion to Stay Execution

1-25 of 10000 results

THE CITIES OF DUARTE VS STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD AND CITY OF GARDENA VS REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD

Stay of Enforcement of Court’s Judgment The Court is inclined to stay enforcement of its judgment pending appeal. The Court is persuaded that the status quo should be maintained pending appeal so that any different relief granted by the Court of Appeal is not rendered illusory, and to avoid interfering with those parts of the Permit which may have been successfully implemented by some cities affected by the Permit.

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2021

ARMEN G KOJIKIAN ET AL VS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO INC

Although true that a settlement can be deemed effective as of its execution, a class action settlement is not effective until after the Court approves it. Counsel is to address why the effective date of the Warranty Gap Period Extension should commence on the execution of the settlement and not its approval.

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

JENNIFER CHAN VS GREAT EASTERN COMPANY

Discussion Notice The motion was filed on July 13, 2020; the proof of service accompanying the motion, however, is deficient, in that it pertains to a “Notice of Pending Action” and indicates a September 11, 2018 service date (but with a July 8, 2020 execution date).

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

GUDINO V. DURAN ET AL.

Meanwhile, on October 29, 2019, defendant filed a notice of stay, indicating he filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy, although the stay was terminated on or near February 14, 2020. Following a number of case management conferences, plaintiff filed an application for right to attach order and order for issuance of a pretrial writ of attachment, an application for right to attach order, a declaration from Michael Haupt (plaintiff’s attorney), a declaration from Ms.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

ELISARRARAS V. HUNT

Defendants argue that Plaintiff now seeks to litigate issues arising from the same set of facts leading to the execution of the Agreement, and that the complaint does not allege any facts which distinguish or negate the mutual release contained in the Agreement. Defendants served their demurrer on Plaintiff and no opposition was filed. The Court finds from the face of Plaintiff’s complaint and its attached exhibits that Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the mutual release.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

TANIA PULLIAM VS HNL AUTOMOTIVE INC ET AL

Finally, the Court declines to stay this motion pending decision by the Court of Appeal. Pursuant to Civil Code section 1794, “If the buyer prevails in an action under this section, the buyer shall be allowed by the court to recover as part of the judgment a sum equal to the aggregate amount of costs and expenses ... determined by the court to have been reasonably incurred by the buyer in connection with the commencement and prosecution of such action.” (Civ. Code, § 1794, subd. (d).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

The entire judgment must be bonded to stay execution on appeal. (Id. at p. 129.) Defendant’s argument is meritless. The Court finds that Defendant failed to follow the order of the court of Department 44. There, the court ordered that “if a sufficient bond is not posted by September 4, 2019 the stay on enforcement is lifted.” (Klitzke Decl., Exh. 4.) Defendant did not post a bond by September 4, 2019 and indeed has never posted a bond.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

JANE DOE VS LAW OFFICES OF BENJAMIN KANANI, ET AL.

.: 11 Discover Motion C/O: None POS: OK Trial Date: None SUBJECT: MOTION TO STAY ACTION MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Jane Doe RESP. PARTY: Defendants Law Offices of Benjamin Kanani and Benjamin Kanani TENTATIVE RULING Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Action is GRANTED pending resolution of the appeals in Case Nos. 17SMRO00308 and 17SMRO00368. The Court agrees with Defendant that there is no automatic stay of this action arising from the appeal of the underlying cases.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JOE ALLEN VS DEHUMIDIFICATION TECHNOLOGIES INC

In opposition, Defendant argues that item 14 is reasonable because items 1 and 5 only include the filing fees for Defendant’s answer and the Ex Parte Application to Stay the Deposition Pending Protective Order. (Opposition, 10-11.) Further, Defendant argues that recovering costs for electronic filing is reasonable because electronic filing is now required. (Id.) The court agrees with Defendant.

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE AUTOMOBILE CLUB, AN INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE VS HECTOR MORESENO, AN INDIVIDUAL

Based on these defects in notice of the hearing date and in the substantive merits of the Motion, Judgment Creditor Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club’s Motion to Include Additional Names of Judgment Debtor on Writ of Execution or Abstract of Judgment’s is DENIED. Moving party to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JEFFREY LOOPER, ET AL. VS FOREST LAWN MEMORIAL-PARKS ASSOCIATION D/B/A FOREST LAWN MEMORIAL-PARKS & MORTUARIES

Specifically, the Court noted: The Court still is concerned that Defendant filed its motion to compel arbitration on June 5, 2020, waited until July 2, 2020 to seek a stay of discovery, and propounded discovery during the interim. Defendant’s counsel should have sought to stay discovery at the same time he filed a motion to compel arbitration. It does appear, however, that this was a mistake, one which Defendant sought to correct.

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

EVON TAWADROUS VS FARSHAD MALEKMEHR, ET AL.

Regardless, Plaintiff could have sought a stay of this litigation given these issues but failed to do so. Therefore, he is required to comply with her discovery obligations. Plaintiff’s counsel also argues that there was confusion because Defendant served two Requests for Production, one with nine requests and one with three requests, and failed to identify them as “set one” and “set two.” Plaintiff’s argument has no merit.

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

NELSON IGLESIAS, ET AL. VS SAN FERNANDO MOTOR COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Any party that wishes to draw the Court’s attention to a matter filed in this action may simply cite directly to the document by execution and filing date. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1110(d). The Court DENIES Defendants’ request for judicial notice as to Exhibits B and C. “A written trial court ruling in another case has no precedential value.” (Budrow v. Dave & Buster’s of California (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 875, 885; Bolanos v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

HARRIS V. AG LAGUNA HILLS LLC

Superior Court (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 825, 833 n. 6 (for a declaration to be considered properly subscribed under penalty of perjury, it must state the date of execution). Quinn also offers his own declaration. But it does not provide admissible evidence of Plaintiff’s lack of competence. Most of the Quinn Declaration relies on the inadmissible testimony offered by Dr. Choi.

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

LUIS JENARO ENCISO, ET AL. VS A & J AUTO SALES GROUP, INC., ET AL.

C/O: 07-18-21 MOTION C/O: 08-02-21 TRIAL DATE: 08-17-21 PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, PETITION FOR COURT TO PICK ARBITRATION FORUM, REQUEST FOR STAY, REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS, AND REQUEST FOR COSTS MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Luis Jenaro Enciso and Heidi Marie Smith RESP. PARTY: None MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY PROCEEDINGS; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS (CCP §§ 1281.2, et seq.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JP WILSON FAMILY LLC ET AL VS ROBERT SHUMAKE ET AL

If the undertaking is not filed by 5:00 p.m. on that date, the stay shall be dissolved.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

GURDIYAL VS. SINGH

First, defendant Jatinger Singh – whose purported claims are the principal target of the quiet-title action – has filed a notice of bankruptcy stay, which would prevent the Court from conducting a proceeding adverse to Singh’s property claims. And second, Singh has filed a motion for relief from default (although possibly he would be entitled to participate in the examination even if in default).

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

LUIS RODRIGUEZ VS. SECRET RECIPES, INC.

Where a contract provides for attorney's fees, as set forth above, that provision shall be construed as applying to the entire contract, unless each party was represented by counsel in the negotiation and execution of the contract, and the fact of that representation is specified in the contract. Reasonable attorney's fees shall be fixed by the court, and shall be an element of the costs of suit.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MARY SWANSTON VS JULIE CHIRIKIAN, ET AL.

Responding Party: Defendants Arcadia Gardens Management Corporation dba Arcadia Gardens Retirement Hotle, jUlie Chirikian, David Chirikian and Pat Redner (No Opposition) RELIEF REQUESTED: Preference order for trial setting FACTUAL BACKGROUND: Plaintiff Mary Swanston alleges that she is an elder as defined in the Welfare and Institutions Code, as her birthday is October 15, 1919, and that on January 21, 2019, she was admitted to defendant Arcadia Gardens Retirement Hotel (“Arcadia Gardens”) following a hospital stay

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ETHAN ESPIRITU, ET AL. VS CITY OF CULVER CITY, ET AL.

Defendants argue: “A preferential trial date, in conjunction with the ongoing public health crisis and indefinite Stay-At-Home Order issued by the governor of California, would serve to severely impede Defendants’ ability to adequately prepare for trial.” (Defendant’s Opposition, p.2:18-21.) Defendants cite no authority from the Governor, the Legislature, or the Judiciary that suspends the dictates of Code of Civil Procedure section 36(b).

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

SHINDLER VS. PRIME HEALTHCARE ANAHEIM, LLC

Defendant Prime Healthcare Anaheim LLC's Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings The motion has been withdrawn.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

MARTA NAVA VS STERLING BV, INC., A CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS AS BUENA VISTA FOOD PRODUCTS, ET AL.

The stay is continued until completion of the arbitration or further order of the court. Defendants to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ANNA BENEDETTI, ET AL. VS JOHNNY MIMS, ET AL.

PRESENTATION: On March 13, 2020, the Court granted City's motion to stay action. Plaintiffs filed the instant motion on August 07, 2020, City filed an opposition on September 14, 2020, and no reply has been received by the Court. RELIEF REQUESTED: Plaintiffs move for an order to lift the stay imposed on March 13, 2020. DISCUSSION: Standard of Review – Motion to Lift Stay – The court has the discretion to stay civil proceedings pending the outcome of criminal proceedings. Avant! Corp. v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

THE MORTGAGE LAW FIRM, PLC VS ALL CLAIMANTS TO SURPLUS PROCEEDS AFTER THE TRUSTEE'S SALE OF THE REAL PROPERTY

It would appear then, that any stay in determining this matter would be substantial, into June of next year. Such a delay in getting surplus funds to the appropriate party does not appear to be a fair manner of dealing with the issue.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

JOE F., BYERS, BY AND THROUGH HIS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST, COURTLAND BYERS, ET AL. VS RIO HONDO SUBACUTE AND NURSING CENTER, LLC, ET AL.

Plaintiffs’ causes of action for elder abuse and violation of residents’ rights both arise out of the decedent’s stay at the Defendant center. The quoted paragraph also contains language that courts have interpreted broadly: “arising out of or in any way relating to.” (See, e.g., Ramos v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 400     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.