Bruns v. E-Commerce Exchange, Inc.
51 Cal.4th 717 (Cal. 2011) Cited 185 times 1 Legal AnalysesIn Bruns, the issue before the court was whether a partial stay, such as a stay on discovery, would trigger section 583.340(b) ’s tolling provision.
Imperial Merchant Ser. v. Hunt
47 Cal.4th 381 (Cal. 2009) Cited 148 timesDistinguishing cases where intent to create exclusive remedy rested only on an assumption to that effect, or an inference drawn from rules of statutory construction
Brock v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals
10 Cal.App.4th 1790 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992) Cited 104 timesIn Brock v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1790, 1795–1796, 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 678 (Brock), the court explained: "A party to a contractual arbitration agreement may compel a recalcitrant party to comply with a valid agreement by means of a petition pursuant to section 1281.2, which is in essence a suit in equity to compel specific performance of the arbitration agreement.
Webster v. Superior Court
46 Cal.3d 338 (Cal. 1988) Cited 76 timesHolding that claimant injured in shooting rampage in offices of insolvent insurer should have been permitted to pursue personal injury claim outside of liquidation process where insurer had liability insurance that would cover any claim plus the expenses of defending it and where claimants stipulated that they would not seek any recovery from the insolvent insurer's assets
Santiago v. D & G Plumbing, Inc.
155 Cal.App.4th 365 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) Cited 40 timesRejecting argument that time to bring matter to trial was tolled based on court congestion and stating "[appellant] also had a duty to take whatever other measures were available to attempt to accelerate trial of the case before expiration of the [mandatory dismissal] period, including bringing a motion to advance the trial .... pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1335"
Au-Yang v. Barton
21 Cal.4th 958 (Cal. 1999) Cited 37 timesDistinguishing continued or trailed trial dates, which do not require additional notice under section 594, and advanced trial dates, which do require notice
People v. Santana
182 Cal.App.3d 185 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986) Cited 48 timesIn Santana, the striking of the prior conviction allegation did not "wipe out prior convictions" or prevent them from being considered in connection with future convictions.
Brunzell Constr. Co. v. Wagner
2 Cal.3d 545 (Cal. 1970) Cited 52 timesReversing orders dismissing the action against certain defendants where the trial court relied on the sole fact that the causes of action against the instant defendants were legally severable from the causes of action involving the other defendants, and did not consider (as it should have) "whether, pragmatically, it was ‘impracticable and futile’ for plaintiff to proceed to trial against the instant defendants during the five-year period succeeding the filing of the complaint"
Marcus v. Superior Court
75 Cal.App.3d 204 (Cal. Ct. App. 1977) Cited 37 timesDocket No. 17977. November 18, 1977. COUNSEL Mitchell, Silberberg Knupp, Howard S. Smith and David S. Gubman for Petitioners. No appearance for Respondent. Howard G. Sonksen and Fred S. Pardes for Real Party in Interest. OPINION KAUFMAN, J. The petitioners filed a motion to stay proceedings pending the outcome of an arbitration proceeding which was ordered pursuant to a motion to compel arbitration. The motion to stay proceedings was denied. Petitioners seek a writ of mandate. We have concluded that
Holland v. Dave Altman's R. v. Center
222 Cal.App.3d 477 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990) Cited 15 timesIn Holland v. Dave Altman's R.V. Center (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 477, 271 Cal.Rptr. 706, the Court of Appeal addressed the meaning of the term “stay” in section 583.340(b).
Section 362 - Automatic stay
11 U.S.C. § 362 Cited 29,419 times 174 Legal AnalysesConcluding that cause exists to lift the stay because no bankruptcy purpose would be served by keeping the stay in place