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 Resources for 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

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS. RX UNLIMITED,LLC ETAL

.: BC670620 ORDER RE: MOTION TO STAY CIVIL DISCOVERY AS TO CERTAIN DEFENDANTS Date: February 5, 2021 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept. 56 On the Court’s own motion, the Court continues the hearing on the motion for an order staying civil discovery[1], filed by Defendants Rx Unlimited LLC, Brian Goldstein, and Clifton Braddy, scheduled for 2/5/2021 at 8:30 a.m. at Stanley Mosk Courthouse in Department 56 to 2/17/2021 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 56. Moving parties are ordered to give notice of this ruling.

  • Hearing

    Feb 05, 2021

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

IRIS OK LEE, ET AL. VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.

.: 20STCV11845 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY PROCEEDINGS Date: February 2, 2021 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept. 56 MOVING PARTY: Defendant Kia Motors America, Inc. The Court has considered the moving papers. No opposition papers were filed. BACKGROUND Defendant filed a motion (the “Motion”) for an order compelling arbitration of this lawsuit and staying any further proceedings. The Motion is unopposed, and the Court therefore GRANTS the Motion under Sexton v.

  • Hearing

    Feb 02, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ANTONIO RAMOS, ET AL VS. HOME CONSTRUCTION SOLUTIONS CORP.

THE REASON FOR THIS IS THAT THE BANKRUPTCY STAY PROHIBITS THE ACTION FROM GOING FORWARD AS TO HOME CONSTRUCTION. A REVIEW OF THE DISCOVERY IN DISPUTE SHOWS THAT THE COURT'S RULING ON THE MOTIONS MAY HAVE AN IMPACT ON DEFENDANT HOME CONSTRUCTION. AS IT IS IN BANKRUPTY AND CANNOT PARTICIPATE IN THE HEARING ON THE MOTIONS, THE COURT FINDS THAT THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE REQUIRE THE MOTIONS TO BE CONTINUED.

  • Hearing

    Feb 02, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

RTA CARNEROS VILLAGE – PHASE II LLC VS AIRSHARP INC

On November 24, 2020, RTA filed a Motion for Relief from Automatic Stay. (Ibid.) On December 23, 2020, the Bankruptcy Court granted RTA’s motion, lifting the automatic stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §362. (Pet., ¶7, Ex. D.) RTA’s petition for order releasing the mechanic’s lien will be granted. No action to enforce the lien has been filed by AirSharp and the time to bring such an action has expired. Pursuant to Civil Code Section 8488, subdivision (c), RTA is awarded its attorney’s fees and costs.

  • Hearing

    Jan 29, 2021

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

ALISON SMITH VS CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA

City acknowledges that while the 4th cause of action does not make specific allegations, Plaintiff’s second government claim explains that the 4th cause of action arises out of City’s application and order for code enforcement inspection warrant, and City’s execution of that warrant.[1] In the 4th cause of action of the TAC, Plaintiff alleges that City (by and through its employees, City Council representatives, public and/or private, by and through its City Manager Stephanie DeWolfe) intentionally interfered

  • Hearing

    Jan 29, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MERRITT VS ADVANCED SEARCH PARTNERS

To the extent that the parties seek the Court's assistance enforcing agreements between them, those matters should be clearly articulated in joint stipulations and presented to the Court for execution as orders. The Court sanctions Defendants and their attorneys in the amount of $1860.00, payable jointly and severally. This allows Plaintiffs to recover a reasonable amount of attorney's fees (4 hours of work at $450 per hour), plus the $60 filing fee.

  • Hearing

    Jan 28, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

JOHNSON V. DRILL TECH DRILLING & SHORING, INC.

; (4) whether a defendant 24 seeking arbitration filed a counterclaim without asking for a stay of the proceedings; (5) “whether important intervening steps [e.g., taking advantage of 25 judicial discovery procedures not available in arbitration] had taken place”; and (6) whether the delay “affected, misled, or prejudiced” the opposing party. 26 27 (St.

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY VS PETER MALO

The parties further agreed that Defendant would discharge his obligation pursuant to the stipulation and that Plaintiff would agree to stay the filing and entry of judgment upon Defendant’s payment of $13,510.08, with $3,510.08 to be paid by Progressive Casualty Insurance and Defendant to pay any difference in the amount paid by Progressive Casualty Insurance plus $75.00 per month commencing February 15, 2020 and continuing thereafter until the balance is paid in full. (Id., ¶ 5, Ex. 1, ¶ 2.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

ANDREA GALANTE VS JASON A WEISS ET AL

The application shall include all of the following, which may be established by affidavit: The basis of the plaintiff’s claim that the plaintiff is entitled to possession; A showing that the property is wrongfully detained and of the manner in which defendant came into possession; A particular description of the property and a statement of its value; The property’s location based on plaintiff’s knowledge, information and belief; and A statement that the property has not been seized by statute or execution

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

ETHANSON INVESTMENTS, LLC VS ENVISAGE HH, LLC

(2) To stay or dismiss the action on the ground of inconvenient forum. (3) To dismiss the action pursuant to the applicable provisions of Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 583.110) of Title 8.” This section provides the exclusive procedure for challenging personal jurisdiction at the outset. Roy v. Superior Court (2005) 127 Cal. App. 4th 337, 342. Although defendant is the moving party, the burden of proof is on plaintiff to defeat the motion by establishing that jurisdictional grounds exist.

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

IEMAN SHAHI VS FATBURGER NORTH AMERICA, INC., ET AL.

Months after the Contract’s execution, Fatburger attempted and succeeded in selling Exclusive Master Franchise rights in Malaysia to third parties. In late 2016, it became clear that the sanctions regime against Iran would not be lifted, and Plaintiff would not be able to open Fatburger franchise restaurants in Iran.

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

6319 COLFAX, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS THE TITAN NEXUS, ET AL.

An injunction cannot be issued, however, to prevent the execution of a public statute by officers of the law for the public benefit. (Code Civ. Proc. § 526(b)(4).)

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

FABIOLA YANI VS BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY DIRECT CORPORATION, A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, ET AL.

On October 23, 2020, Defendants filed this motion to compel arbitration and stay the action pending the completion of arbitration. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE Defendants request that the Court take judicial notice of orders in Dickinson v. Burlington Coat Factory of California, LLC, Case No. BC646419, and Jones v. Burlington Merchandising Corporation, Case No. CIVDS1929227. The request is denied, as the documents are not relevant to the Court’s decision.

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

SOUTHEAST REGIONAL CENTER, LLC, A GEORGIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL. VS YOUNG HUN KIM, ET AL.

Legal Standard “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.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

CESARE VIETINA VS SECURITY PACIFIC ASSOCIATES INC ET AL

“If the purchasing parties elect to purchase the shares of the moving parties but the parties cannot agree upon the fair value of those shares, the purchasing parties may apply to the superior court to stay the dissolution proceeding and ‘ascertain and fix the fair value of the shares owned by the moving parties.’ (§ 2000, subd. (b).)

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

ANTHONY WRIGHT VS CASA DE LAS INVESTMENTS LLC, ET AL.

On January 5, 2021, Plaintiff filed a notice of stay due to Casa’s bankruptcy proceedings. On September 26, 2019, Plaintiff, Casa and Whitehead filed Action 2 against Arabian Zaid Morgan and Terri Sheilan Morgan Revocable Living Trust for breach of contract and fraud. Plaintiff and Whitehead were not parties to the Sale Agreement as Whitehead signed under her capacity as a representative of Casa while Plaintiff is not a signatory to the Sale Agreement or an express beneficiary of the contract.

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

BAD INVESTMENTS LLC AND NAKIA BIBBS

(Bibbs Decl. 1| 18,) Bibbs informed the Sheriff that she had obtained a “Stay of Execution" which was untrue. (Fontaine Decl. p.1:22 -25.) Since Bibbs’ removal, the property at 1323 Leafwood Drive, Unit 11, has been rented under a one-year lease to new tenants. (Fontaine Decl. pp.1:26-2:1.) DISCUSSION I. Legal Standard: Motion for Reconsideration [Code of Civil Procedure, section 1008!

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

ANTONIO RAMOS, ET AL VS. HOME CONSTRUCTION SOLUTIONS CORP.

TENTATIVE RULING 1/27/2021 LC107846 RAMOS V HOME CONSTRUCTION MOTION FOR DISCHARGE AND ATTORNEY FEES FILED BY CROSS-COMPLAINANT AMERICAN CONTRACTORS INDEMINITY IN LIGHT OF THE RECENT BANKRUPTCY FILING RESULTING IN AN AUTOMATIC STAY AS TO PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING DEFENDANT/CROSS-DEFENDANT HOME CONSTRUCTION SOLUTIONS CORP, THE COURT IS INCLINED TO CONTINUE THE HEARING ON THE MOTION.

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS LIVING REBOS, LLC ETAL

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).) B. Evidentiary Objections Defendant Carlos Montano submits 8 evidentiary objections to the declaration of Sebastian M. Medvei and two evidentiary objections to the declaration of Alison Tonti.

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

KILEY TASLITZ ANDERSON VS MADISON + VINE, INC., ET AL.

On May 17, 2019, the bankruptcy court granted Petitioner’s motion for relief from the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362, and modified the stay to permit Petitioner to seek to convert the arbitration award resulting from the underlying action into a final judgment by commencing an action in this Court. Petitioner thereafter filed a petition to confirm the arbitration award with this Court.

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

YANHONG CHEN, ET AL. V. YONG WANG, ET AL.

Plaintiffs then argue that if the Court is inclined to grant Wang’s Motion, Plaintiffs request, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 473(b)-(c), that the Court: (1) Order Wang to pay Plaintiffs’ costs and attorney’s fees in the amount of $26,203.53, incurred in obtaining the default judgment, abstract of judgment, and writ of execution, and for opposing this Motion; (2) Condition Defendant’s relief on Defendant posting security in the form of a bond in the amount of $189,120.89; (3) Condition Defendant’s relief

  • Hearing

    Jan 26, 2021

PARTNERS PERSONNEL - MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC V. TRICAP INTERNATIONAL, LLC

Analysis: Judgment for $176,000 entered 8/2020; Writ of Execution issued 10/16/20; Application and Order to appear for debtor’s examination before this Court to Tricap International, LLC to furnish in information to aid in enforcement of a money judgment entered 12/3/20; to appear on 1/26/21 at 10am. No POS. The matter will not go forward; the Court will reset the matter off the calendar if an attorney appears and makes the request.

  • Hearing

    Jan 26, 2021

GOMEZ V. PANDA MOTORS, INC.

If the party opposing the petition raises a defense to enforcement—either fraud in the execution voiding the agreement, or a statutory defense of waiver or revocation [citation]—that party bears the burden of producing evidence of, and proving by a preponderance of the evidence, any fact necessary to the defense.’ [Citation.]” (Fn. 8 omitted.) Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Group, Inc.

  • Hearing

    Jan 26, 2021

RUBY ESCALANTE V. DORI STONE

While representations have been made to the Court that the bankruptcy stay has been lifted, nothing has been filed with the Court to confirm this status. Absent clarification in writing, filed with the Court, the hearing on demurrer will not proceed.

  • Hearing

    Jan 26, 2021

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.