1-25 of 349 results

SANTIAGO V. JOHAL

...Defendants/Cross-Defendants Ranvir Singh Johal (“Ranvir”) and Chamkaur Singh Johal (“Chamkaur”) to Stay Discovery in Civil Action Pending Completion of Criminal Trial Tentative Ruling: To grant. Discovery is stayed in this action as follows: (1) Pending completion of the pending criminal case against Ranvir, plaintiffs, defendant Caruthers Unified School District and defendant Joshua Henderson (collectively, “...

...Plaintiffs and defendants are not permitted to depose Ranvir or Chamkaur during the pendency of the criminal case against Ranvir. The stay is reciprocal: Ranvir and Chamkaur may not serve any form of discovery requests, nor take depositions of defendants or their employees. (2) At such time as the criminal case against Ranvir has been completed through trial, plea, conviction or dismissal, the stay limiting...

  • Hearing

    Mar 20, 2017

  • Type

    22 Unlimited - Auto

VICTOR ULLOA ET AL VS NORM'S RESTAURANTS

...article, there shall be excluded the time during which any of the following conditions existed: (a) The jurisdiction of the court to try the action was suspended. (b) Prosecution or trial of the action was stayed or enjoined. (c) Bringing the action to trial, for any other reason, was impossible, impracticable, or futile. (Emphasis added.) These tolling provisions “must be liberally construed consistent wit...

...preparation of a service list….This stay does not preclude the parties from informally exchanging documents that may assist in their initial evaluation of the issues presented in this case[;] however[,] it stays all outstanding discovery requests.” [Kearnaghan Decl., Exh. A at 6:2-16 (emphasis in original).] The Court held the initial status conference in this matter on June 14, 2013. Among other things, th...

  • Hearing

    Aug 16, 2018

  • Type

    Other Employment Complaint (General Jurisdiction)

MILLER V. MARRUJO

...is seeking to prevent plaintiff from obtaining information from defendant that would be in direct violation of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. A stay of litigation, including discovery, is proper until after the conclusion of a criminal matter. Pacers, Inc. v. Superior Court (1984) 162 CA3d 686, 690. Defendant has actual pending charges against him in OCSC, case no. 18NM16639. (Exhi...

...related transactions, an objecting party is generally entitled to a stay of discovery in the civil action until disposition of the criminal matter…"). The motion is premature in that no discovery has been served and there is no evidence Plaintiffs are seeking information that may incriminate Marrujo. Given Plaintiffs’ continuing financial hardships due to the subject incident and the interests of the court an...

  • Hearing

    Mar 6, 2019

RAMOS VS. FRICK

...Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410. The parties do not dispute the following facts: 1) Ramos served the discovery at issue on 9/19/2018. Porrazzo Decl., ¶ 2; Kirk Decl., ¶ 1. 2) Initial responses were served on 11/6/2018; Porrazzo Decl., ¶ 3; Kirk Decl., ¶ 1. 3) The parties met and conferred regarding the initial responses and Roger and Holman served amended responses on 1/28/2019. Porrazzo Decl., ¶ 5; Ki...

...absent any other agreement, was 3/14/2019. Porrazzo Decl., ¶ 5; Kirk Decl., ¶ 1. Based on the evidence presented, the parties agreed to stay the discovery at issue, including a Bank of America subpoena, during Merle’s deposition on 3/5/2019. Porrazzo Decl., ¶¶ 8-10, Exhibits C and D; Kirk Decl., ¶¶ 5-6; Opposition, Exhibits 3 and 4. Although Ramos contends the parties agreed to a stay on 3/4/2019, that was ...

  • Hearing

    May 30, 2019

CLAUD MANN VS JAMES HARRISON ET AL

...Mann filed his original complaint in this action asserting causes of action for automobile negligence, negligence per se, and negligent entrustment. On July 15, 2015, Mann served on Harrison written discovery consisting of requests for admission, form interrogatories, and requests for production of documents. (Feingold decl., ¶ 2 & exhibit A.) (Note: There are three separate declarations of attorney Erik F...

...motions.) On August 18, 2015, counsel for Harrison requested an extension to respond to the discovery. (Feingold decl., ¶ 3.) On September 2, 2015, counsel for Harrison served unverified responses to the discovery. (Feingold decl., ¶ 4; Haigh decl. re protective order [Haigh PO decl.], ¶ 3 & exhibit B.) At the time these responses were served, Harrison informed his counsel that he was homeless and was limited i...

  • Hearing

    Nov 13, 2015

JONES VS DOE

1. Defendant James Davis’ Motion to Stay Action Pending Resolution of Criminal charges 2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings related to the Defendant’s Answer. Defendant, James Scott Davis’ Motion for an order staying this civi...

...Court Case No. 17NF1487) pending against him is GRANTED. As a result, the Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings with respect to the Defendant’s Answer is subject to the stay. If and when the Stay is lifted, the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings may be re-set for hearing at the Plaintiff’s request. That stay shall remain in effect pending further order of this Court. The Court intends to mon...

  • Hearing

    Jan 5, 2018

ST. MARK VS. SAINT MARK

...the five-year statute, at least against the present moving defendant. A bankruptcy case involving one defendant creates an automatic stay of state-court proceedings against that defendant. There is no stay, however, prohibiting a plaintiff from continuing to prosecute a state-court case against other, non-bankrupt defendants. Plaintiff does not assert that its inability to litigate in this Court against...

...9027(c). Hence, during the period when this action was removed to bankruptcy court, “the jurisdiction of [this] court was suspended”, Code of Civil Procedure § 583.340(a). Accordingly, the entire time during which this action was pending in bankruptcy court must be excluded from the five-year calculation. Spanair S.A. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 348. Defendant responds only that in ...

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2017

DANNY GHINGHIS VS. NORMAN FLAM

...plaintiff moved for an order imposing a terminating sanction as to Flam for his alleged failure to comply with the order compelling discovery responses. In addition, Flam moved the court for an order staying discovery in this action pending resolution of the criminal case against him. (Ventura County Superior Court case no. 2011032806.) Both motions were opposed. The court continued the motions and vacated the tri...

...motion, the court observed that plaintiff had not given effective notice of the order compelling discovery. It established a new compliance date for the responses of October 10, 2013. In addition, the court stayed all other discovery and continued the hearing on the motions to that date. One reason for the continuance was to afford Flam an opportunity to file any additional motions he deemed appropriate. The...

  • Hearing

    Oct 10, 2013

  • Type

    Fraud

CENTRAVEL, INC. VS FERDINAND LIPANA, ET AL.

Defendants Ferdinand Lipana’s motion for a discovery stay is DENIED. Defendants Bernadine Lipana, Lawrence Lipana, Lancelle Lipana, and Sandrine Lipana joinder motions are DENIED. Plaintiff Centravel Inc.’s request for sanctions is DENIED. On February 15,...

...2019, Ferdinand move for a discovery stay during the pendency of his criminal case involving these transactions. On that same date, the Court granted Ferdinand’s ex parte request for a temporary stay of discovery pending the outcome this motion. Bernadine, Larence, Lancelle and Sandrine filed joinders. On September 24, 2019, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On September 30, 2019, Ferdinand filed a reply. Legal ...

  • Hearing

    Oct 7, 2019

  • Type

    Fraud (no contract) (General Jurisdiction)

NEW YORK RESTAURANT CONCEPTS INC ET AL VS JERRY FERRARA

...depositions noticed by Ferrara until after Ferrara has complied with document production requests and Cross-Defendants have had a reasonable opportunity to review the production. DISCUSSION “Before, during, or after a deposition, any party, any deponent, or any other affected natural person or organization may promptly move for a protective order.” (CCP §2025.420(a).) “The court, for good cause shown, m...

...limited to, one or more of the following directions: … That the deposition be taken at a different time.” (CCP §2025.420(b)(2).) The evidence reflects the following: On September 26, 2016, Ferrara served discovery requests including person most knowledgeable deposition notices on Fat Sal’s Branding, LLC, The Gayley Group, LP, and New York Restaurant Concepts, Inc. (Torres Decl. ¶2; Henry Decl. ¶3, Ex. A.) The p...

  • Hearing

    Feb 6, 2017

  • Type

    Prtnrship & Corp Governance Case (General Jurisdiction)

BUCKLEY VS CITY OF ANGELS VETERINARY SPECIALTY CENTER ET AL

...Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions. BACKGROUND On July 17, 2017, ACCESS filed an ex parte application for an order specially setting a hearing on their motion for a protective order re: Buckley’s abuse of discovery and witness intimidation. The Court granted that order and set hearing for July 28, 2017. Buckley filed an opposition on July 25, 2017. DISCUSSION As an initial matter, ACCESS argues that Buckley’s ...

...whatever order “justice requires” to protect a party against “unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense.” (CCP §2031.060(b).) “The court shall limit the scope of discovery if it determines that the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (CCP §201...

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2017

  • Type

    Fraud (no contract) (General Jurisdiction)

HOUSING AUTHORITY COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA VS GLENN MERRILL

Nature of Proceedings: Motion Protective Order/Sanctions Motion for Protective Order Ruling: Granted. This action is temporarily stayed pending disposition of the related criminal matter. There will be a case management conference at 8:30 am on October 20, 2009 for a report on the status of the resolution of the criminal action. Sta...

...$1,000 in sanctions for 4 hours of his counsel’s time at $250 per hour. Summary of Opposition There is no right to a blanket stay of recovery until the termination of the criminal matter. Many of the discovery requests seek information that is not incriminating. This action is entitled to priority and the statute of limitations on the alleged criminal acts ranges from one to three years. Summary of Reply ...

  • Hearing

    Aug 25, 2009

FONSECA VS HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY [E-FILE]

...to Stay Discovery Fonseca v. Hewlett Packard, Case No. 2017-45630 Sept. 13, 2019, 1:30 p.m., Dept. 72 1. Overview and Procedural Posture. This is a putative class action challenging HP's decisions during 2012–17 to implement its "U.S. Workforce Reduction Plan," which plaintiff alleges was a "scheme to terminate its older, higher paid employees and replace them with younger, lower paid employees." The ...

...12, 2019. The court took the motion under submission so it could read a case cited by plaintiff's counsel during that argument. ROA 64-65. The court thereafter issued its ruling granting the motion to stay except with respect to the two "no poach" antitrust counts (counts 5 and 6). ROA 67. The court was to have taken up defendant's pleading challenges on May 3, 2019. ROA 32–37 (motion to strike); ROA 38...

  • Hearing

    Sep 12, 2019

  • Type

    Wrongful Termination

MARSHA MALAMET VS FRANCES COYLE ET AL

marsha malamet, Plaintiff, v. FRANCES COYLE, Defendant. Case No.: BC669374 Hearing Date: January 18, 2019 [TENTATIVE] order RE: MOTION to stay discovery BACKGROUND Plaintiff Marsha Malamet (“Plaintiff”) sues Defendants Frances Coyle (“Coyle”); Jeremy Tarr; Holly Rogers; Michael Tarr; Dale Tarr; and Brad Spring (collectively, “Defendants”) ...

...and fair dealing; (3) intentional interference with contractual relations; (4) intentional interference with prospective economic relations and (5) negligence. ANALYSIS CCP §425.16(g) provides, “All discovery proceedings in the action shall be stayed upon the filing of a notice of motion made pursuant to this section. The stay of discovery shall remain in effect until notice of entry of the order ruling on...

  • Hearing

    Jan 18, 2019

  • Type

    Other Real Property Rights Case (General Jurisdiction)

BRADSHAW V. ACQUA CONCEPTS, INC. ET AL.

...One. Explanation: Defendants filed their motion for bond pursuant to Corporations Code section 800, subdivision (c) on May 6, 2016. The Demand for Production of Documents, Set One at issue in this motion was served by mail on May 9, 2016. (Stokes Decl. ¶ 3; Ex. A.) The instant motion was filed June 24, 2016. The Motion for Bond was ruled on by this court on August 18, 2016. Corporations Code section 800, subdivi...

...“[i]f a motion is filed pursuant to subdivision (c) … the prosecution of the action shall be stayed until 10 days after the motion has been disposed of.” It is well established that this stay encompasses discovery. (Melancon v. Superior Court In and For Los Angeles County (1954) 42 Cal.2d 698, 707; Barber v. Lewis & Kaufman, Inc. (1954) 125 Cal.App.2d 95, 98-99.) Accordingly, both the Demand for Production and ...

  • Hearing

    Aug 26, 2016

  • Type

    21 Unlimited - Partnership and Corporate Governance

BARBARA TAYLOR VS PROMISE HOSPITAL EAST LA ET AL

...BC670984 Hearing Date: May 6, 2019 RULING RE: Defendant East Terrace Rehabiliation & Wellness Centre, LP’s Motion to Stay Entire Case. Defendant East Terrace Rehabiliation & Wellness Centre, LP’s Motion to Stay Entire Case is GRANTED. Factual Background This is an action for elder abuse. The Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) alleges as follows.[1] Plaintiff and Decedent Barbara Taylor (“Taylor”) resided at ...

...(SAC ¶ 9.) Socal thus made a conscious choice to disregard the obvious injury to Taylor. (SAC ¶ 9.) Defendant Doctor Raj Prasad (“Prasad”) was Taylor’s only treating physician, and he saw her routinely during the relevant time period. (SAC ¶ 9.) Prasad admitted Taylor to Defendant Promise Hospital East LA (“Promise”) for chest pain, shortness of breath, and IV antibiotics on August 5, 2015. (FAC ¶ 9.) Pras...

  • Hearing

    May 6, 2019

  • Type

    Other PI/PD/WD (General Jurisdiction)

MCW FUELS VS WESTCO PETROLEUM DISTRIBUTORS ET AL

...party or attorney against whom the sanction is sought, as required under CCP § 2023.040. The court is also concerned that the motion is primarily directed to discovery responses which are subject to the stay of this matter. Monetary sanctions sought by the responding party are DENIED. Unopposed Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED. RELIEF REQUESTED: Further Responses to Form Interrogatories,...

...underscoring, in original). At the hearing, the minute order states: “Counsel for Counter Defendant Stan Boyett & Son Represents to the Court that the stay order may effect the Motion to Compel Further Discovery, previously scheduled for January 19, 2018. The Court informs counsel that it may well effect The motion, but without going through the motion papers, the Court is unable to make that determination...

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2018

  • Type

    Contractual Fraud (General Jurisdiction)

RAY V. WESTWOOD HOMES, INC.

...Time to Bring Action to Trial”, which found that the trial of the action on October 23, 2017 would be timely and not violate the five year statutory time to bring the matter to trial due to a lengthy stay of discovery, a stay of the action pending arbitration, and a period of time that Temporary Judge Pechner found that it was impossible, impractical, and futile to bring the action to trial. On July 21...

...there shall be excluded the time during which any of the following conditions existed: ¶ (a) The jurisdiction of the court to try the action was suspended. ¶ (b) Prosecution or trial of the action was stayed or enjoined. ¶ (c) Bringing the action to trial, for any other reason, was impossible, impracticable, or futile.” (Code of Civil Procedure, § 583.340.) The Law Revision Commission Comments to Sectio...

  • Hearing

    Aug 24, 2017

  • Type

    BREACH OF CONTRACT - UNLIMITED

SCOTT NALICK VS CHRISTINA PIZARRO ET AL

...denied. ANALYSIS The authority for a motion for protective order staying a deposition is found in Code of Civil Procedure Section 2025.420, subsections (a) and (b), which provide that at any time before, during, or after a deposition any party or deponent may, on a showing of good cause, obtain an order protecting the party or deponent from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden an...

...asserts that she should not be required to give a deposition until the other defendant in the case, Mr. Dobry, who is the brother of plaintiff’s stepfather and a possible claimant to his estate, has been served with legal process and has either appeared in the case or had his default taken. Defendant is concerned that if her deposition is not postponed, she may be subject to multiple depositions, creating u...

  • Hearing

    Nov 24, 2009

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY V. DEMETRIO VALENZELA, ET AL.

...Glendale) For Respondent: No appearance Tentative Ruling: The court grants the motion of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company for a discovery sanction and orders the uninsured motorist arbitration stayed until respondents Demetrio Valenzuela, Eliza Arriaga, and Beatriz Valenzuela comply with this court’s January 14, 2019 order to serve verified responses to the form interrogatories and demands for i...

...Insurance Company commenced this action under Ins. Code 11580.2(f), which provides that the Civil Discovery Act shall be applicable in uninsured motorist arbitrations and parties to the arbitration may seek discovery remedies in the superior court in the proper county for filing suit for injury arising out of the accident. Respondents Demetrio Valenzuela, Eliza Arriaga, and Beatriz Valenzuela made a claim for unin...

  • Hearing

    May 20, 2019

THE DIOCESE OF SAN JOAQUIN V. THE REV. JAMES SNELL, ET AL.

...years, and if the action is not tried within two years of a mistrial or reversal after appeal. (Code Civ. Proc., § 583.420, subd. (a).) This motion seeks to dismiss the case because it has been pending, unstayed for more than three years. Defendants, as the moving party, have the burden to show that a discretionary dismissal is warranted. Defendants meet this burden by “a showing of some prejudice or the pr...

...2010 and a motion to strike on May 27, 2010. Proofs of service in the Court’s file indicate that the individual defendants were served during July and August of 2010. Defendants admit that “Plaintiffs served the complaints in a timely manner.” (See Defendants’ Memo of Points & Authorities, filed 5/31/18, at 11:17-18.) (3) The extent to which the parties engaged in any settlement negotiations or discussion...

  • Hearing

    Jul 23, 2018

  • Type

    42 Unlimited - Other Complaint (not specified)

PLASCENCIA VS CENTURY NATIONAL INSURANCE

...Insurance Company ("Century"), is granted. This action is stayed pending the appraisal of the amount of the loss. Preliminary Matters Century argues the Opposition should be disregarded because it was never served. Under the Code, an opposition is required to be served 9 court days before the hearing, in a manner to ensure delivery by the next business day. Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subds. (b) and (c). Although ...

...defer appraisal in appropriate circumstances," under section 1281.2 of the Code Civil Procedure. Alexander v. Farmers Ins. Co., Inc. (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1183, 1195. However, "the decision whether to stay the appraisal is committed to the trial court's sound discretion." Id. Plaintiffs say their complaint is not based solely on a disagreement over the value of the loss because they have also alleged Ce...

  • Hearing

    Sep 19, 2019

  • Type

    Insurance Coverage

UNIVERSAL BANK VS CENTRAL ESCROW INC ET AL

...20 ________________________________________ Hearing Date: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 Posted on CourtNet: February 27, 2017 Case Name: Universal Bank v. Central Escrow, Inc., et al. Case No.: BC629391 Motion: Stay Discovery as to Defendants Moving Party: Defendants Saeid Aminpour, Elena Aminpour, Eli Investment, Inc., and Brian Investment, Inc. Responding Party: Plaintiff Universal Bank Notice: OK _____________________...

...“Defendants”) move to stay discovery against them pending the resolution of the federal criminal investigation against the Aminpours. Plaintiff opposes the motion on the grounds that an indefinite stay of discovery, which could last potentially for years, is unnecessary as the criminal investigation is no longer being pursued by law enforcement. And Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $3,580.00 for th...

  • Hearing

    Mar 1, 2017

  • Type

    Other Commercial/Business Tort (General Jurisdiction)

RUTH THROWER VS. GRANCARE LLC

...arbitration is continued as more fully explained below. The Court previously ordered this matter stayed to permit discovery pertaining to the petition to compel arbitration to proceed. Subsequently, plaintiffs served a deposition notice and request for production of documents on defendant Grancare. That discovery sought a person most knowledgeable to testify with respect to ten topics, and the production of docume...

...categories for which it already had agreed to provide discovery. As a result, Grancare contends that because plaintiffs have not moved forward with that discovery, they have been dilatory in conducting the discovery and the petition should be heard now. The Court disagrees. Plaintiffs served discovery that they believed relevant to the petition to compel arbitration, in accordance with the Court’s prior order. Wi...

  • Hearing

    Jun 6, 2016

OVERLAND DIRECT INC VS. ESOLA CAPITAL INVESTMENT LLC

...Defendant within three years after the action was commenced and the Court is without jurisdiction to proceed against this specially appearing Defendant, is GRANTED. The summons and Complaint shall be served within three years after the action is commenced. Code Civ. Proc. 583.210(a). An action is commenced at the time the complaint is filed. Id. If service is not made within the time prescribed, the acti...

...those alleged in the original complaint). Hence, Plaintiff can file a timely Complaint under section 474, and from the time such a Complaint is filed, Plaintiff has three years to use the machinery of discovery to identify Defendant, amend the Complaint, and serve him or her. Norgart v. Upjohn Co. (1999) 21 Cal. 4th 383, 398. This effectively enlarges the limitations period for three years through the doctri...

  • Hearing

    Oct 6, 2017

  • Type

    Business Tort

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 14     last » 

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