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

JULIUS CLARK VS UNICAL AVIATION, INC.

.: 19STCV46721 Hearing Date: September 23, 2020 Defendant’s motion to stay the instant proceedings is GRANTED. On December 30, 2019, Julius Clark (Plaintiff), as an aggrieved employee and private attorney general, filed a PAGA claim against Unical Aviation (Defendant). Defendant now moves to stay this action. Legal Standards “Trial courts generally have the inherent power to stay proceedings in the interests of justice and to promote judicial efficiency.” (Freiberg v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

HARVEY KREITENBERG, ET AL. VS MICHAEL ROSENBERG, ET AL.

Party: Plaintiffs Harvey Kreitenberg, Eli Krich, Yoseph Chazanow, Eli Chitrik, and Berel Wilhelm SUBJECT: (3) Motion to Quash Deposition Notices, Alternatively, to Stay the Depositions (Ministerios Christianos Guerreros De Jehova) Moving Party: Defendant Ministerios Cristianos Resp.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

CERTAIN UNDERWRITTERS AT LLOYDS' SUBSCRIBING TO COVER NOTE B0509MARCR1900001, ET AL. VS APEX LOGISTICS INTERNATIONAL, INC., A CORPORATION, ET AL.

A motion to compel arbitration or stay proceedings must state verbatim the provisions providing for arbitration or must have a copy of them attached. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1330.) A party may demonstrate express acceptance of the arbitration agreement in order to be bound (e.g., Mago v. Shearson Lehman Hutton Inc. (9th Cir. 1992) 956 F.2d 932 [agreement to arbitrate included in job application]; Nghiem v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

CITY OF COSTA MESA V. NATIONAL THERAPEUTIC SERVICES, INC.

The franchisor requested a stay as it was defending against multiple federal actions brought by other franchisees raising similar claims. The trial court granted the stay. The court of appeal reversed: “where they support issuance of a stay, the assumption underlying most of these authorities is that the two related lawsuits are between the same or substantially identical parties” and that the other basis is for cases that are in rem. Id. at 136-38.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

VELASQUEZ VS PROFESSIONAL COMMUNITY HEARING RE: MOTION TO/FOR BY SPECIALLY APPEARING DEF TO DISMISS OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO STAY ACTION PURSUANT TO FORUM BY PROFESSIONAL COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT OF

In response, PCM filed this motion to dismiss or stay based upon the grounds that Plaintiff executed two Nondisclosure Agreements that contain a clear forum selection clause requiring any lawsuit brought against PCM, arising from plaintiff's purported employment with PCM, to be litigated in the federal or state courts located in Dallas County, Texas.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

LEV INVESTMENTS, LLC VS RUVIN FEYGENBERG, ET AL.

A stay of proceedings as to Plaintiff was issued on June 1, 2020 due to Plaintiff’s filing for bankruptcy. On June 15, 2020, Trustee and Kemel (moving parties) filed this motion to compel the depositions of Feygenberg, Leizerovitz, and Sensible. Moving parties also request that $8,610 in sanctions be ordered against Defendants and their counsel. II.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

ERNEST CUADRA VS FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

Based on those circumstances and in the interests of judicial economy, the court will exercise its discretion to order a stay of the instant action so long as those conditions continue to exist. If the class alleged is not certified involving substantially the same substantive claims, the court may determine to modify or lift the stay. As such, Fedex’s plea of abatement is denied but the motion for a stay is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

CAMPUZANO VS. CONTRERAS

‘The purpose of the statutory stay is to protect the jurisdiction of the arbitrator by preserving the status quo until arbitration is resolved.’ . . .’In the absence of a stay, the continuation of the proceedings in the trial court disrupts the arbitration proceedings and can render them ineffective.’” Heritage Provider Network, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1146, 1152.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

MANOUK MESROPYAN, ET AL. VS STEVEN BEAUCHMAN

Here, Defendant asserts that Plaintiffs claims are barred by the relevant Release Agreement entered into by Mesropyan, whereby AAA tendered its policy limit of $25,000.00 in consideration for Mesropyan’s execution. Defendant contends the agreement was intended to settle all of Plaintiffs’ claims arising from the incident against Defendant. Moreover, Defendant argues it is undisputed that Mesropyan accepted and cashed the check through his counsel.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

JOHN BRECKENRIDGE, ET AL. VS PARK WELLINGTON OWNERS' ASSOCIATION

Plaintiffs contend that to address any potential question or argument regarding the stay in effect in this matter due to the pending appeal, Plaintiffs intended to file a motion to support the stay, however, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Plaintiffs were unable to file such a motion without a hearing date and reservation ID.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

SHAUNA JOYCE MORGAN, ET AL. VS MAGDALENA GUTIERREZ, ET AL.

On September 17, 2019, a “Notice of Stay of Proceedings” was filed as to H. Osorio. On December 17, 2019, an “Order and Notice of Dismissal Arising from Chapter 13 Confirmation Hearing” was filed. On January 27, 2020, a “Notice of Termination of Modification of Stay” was filed. On August 28, 2020, H. Osorio’s default was entered.[1] A Case Management Conference and an Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to Proceed with Default Judgment are set for September 21, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

CAMPUZANO VS. CONTRERAS

‘The purpose of the statutory stay is to protect the jurisdiction of the arbitrator by preserving the status quo until arbitration is resolved.’ . . .’In the absence of a stay, the continuation of the proceedings in the trial court disrupts the arbitration proceedings and can render them ineffective.’” Heritage Provider Network, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1146, 1152.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

ALFONSO VARILLAS VS E & E RISTORANTE GROUP, INC, ET AL.

A motion to compel arbitration or stay proceedings must state verbatim the provisions providing for arbitration or must have a copy of them attached. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1330.) A party may demonstrate express acceptance of the arbitration agreement in order to be bound (e.g., Mago v. Shearson Lehman Hutton Inc. (9th Cir. 1992) 956 F.2d 932 [agreement to arbitrate included in job application]; Nghiem v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

IAN CAMPBELL VS PYLE IRREVOCABLE TRUST ET AL

Therefore, the defaults were not entered in violation of the automatic stay, and Defendant disavows that he is making a renewed application for relief from default on the ground that the Court had given him until December 15, 2010 to renew his motion and the automatic stay began November 30, 2010. In any event, both defaults were entered well before the automatic stay was in place. Likewise, the entry of default judgment occurred after the stay was lifted.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

SHAUNA JOYCE MORGAN, ET AL. VS MAGDALENA GUTIERREZ, ET AL.

Osorio must be vacated, due to the automatic stay provision of 11 U.S.C. § 362. Plaintiff is instructed to re-file a “Request for Entry of Default (CIV-100)” forthwith. (“CRC”) Rule 3.1800(a)(1).

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

KRISTA LYNN TAYLOR VS LISA HANKIN

The Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to require Plaintiffs to provide an undertaking to stay enforcement of award of attorney’s fees and costs during appeal.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

ROY E STEPHENSON VS HICKINGBOTHAM LIMITED ET AL

He does not say that he has propounded any discovery addressed to the document or that he has deposed anyone, such as Nora Whitaker, regarding its execution. (Plaintiff only refers to his own discovery responses regarding the document.) Plaintiff presents no evidence that he cannot afford his own expert. The court does not find cause to appoint an expert pursuant to Evid. Code § 730. The court denies plaintiff Roy E. Stephenson’s motion for order appointing forensic document examiner.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

ALCOR LIFE EXTENSION FOUNDATION VS KARL E PILGERAM ET AL

A stay will also greatly reduce the risk of inconsistent rulings or judgments. Finally, it makes sense to stay the proceedings pending resolution of Karl’s settlement motion. The current action is ordered stayed until October 23, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

JOHN J STEF VS PUEBLO RADIOLOGY MEDICAL GROUP INC ET AL

Defendant attached the billing records to its reply papers, and provided the explanation for why they were not provided with the original motion, which related to the difficulties in obtaining and editing hard copies of the billing records, given the fact that the required personnel were working remotely, in compliance with the Governor’s stay-at-home order.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

ALCOR LIFE EXTENSION FOUNDATION VS KARL E PILGERAM ET AL

Nature of Proceedings: Motion for Stay Tentative not yet posted, please check again.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

CLARK VS. QASSEM

Seterus filed a motion for relief from the automatic stay in the bankruptcy case, which the bankruptcy court granted. (UMF 15, 16.) Seterus’s policy for secured loans in bankruptcy is to contract the bankruptcy debtor’s attorney to request permission to secure and maintain the property. (UMF 17.) However, Seterus has an additional policy that if a property in bankruptcy is occupied, Seterus cannot take any action toward that property. (UMF 19.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

CALIFORNIA CREDITS GROUP, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS NORTH AMERICAN CLIENT SERVICES, INC., A NEVADA CORPORATION, ET AL.

In turn, Plaintiff’s PNK testified that prior to execution of the Agreements, Plaintiff made no representation to Edgewater of VSFN that Plaintiff would only be paid upon realization of financial benefit from the tax credits. (PMK Depo. 93:15-94:3.) It is not immediately clear how a lack of mutual exchange of contractual interpretation prior to the execution of the Agreements imports on this issue.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

SALVADOR DELGADILLO, ET AL. VS CARLOS P CASIM, ET AL.

Plaintiffs allege on March 3, 2017, Plaintiff Salvador Delgadillo entered into a contract with Defendant Avalon View Homes, Inc. to stay at their residential care facility. Prior to admission, Plaintiffs allege, Defendants knew about Mr. Delgadillo’s medical history which included bipolar disorder, Parkinson’s disease, recurrent falls, and fevers. Plaintiffs further allege on September 23, 2017, Mr. Delgadillo was on his way to the bathroom when he suffered a preventable fall.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MARINA HABA VS VICINO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ET AL.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE Cross-Complainant requests this court take judicial notice of: (1) Joint Stipulation to resolve: (1) Motion for Relief from Stay; (2) Motion to Dismiss; and (3) Provide Releases by Debtor and Marina Haba (Exh. A); (2) Motion for an Order Approving Rule 9019 Settlement and Stipulation; Memorandum of Points and Authorities, and Declaration of Joe Wallace in Support Thereof (Exh.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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 gather your results.