Legal Opinion

MKJA Inc. v. 123 Fit Franchising, LLC

California Court of Appeal

Decided January 4, 2011No. D055967PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

AARON, J.

I

INTRODUCTION

Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.41 requires that a court impose a stay of litigation whenever that court, or another court, has ordered arbitration of a controversy that is an issue in the litigation. The court in which the litigation is pending is required to “stay the action or proceeding until an arbitration is had in accordance with the order to arbitrate or until such earlier time as the court specifies.” (Ibid.)

In this case, the trial court lifted a stay of litigation that had been imposed pursuant to section 1281.4, on the ground that plaintiffs could…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Parada v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
  2. Molecular Analytical Systems v. Ciphergen Biosystems, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2010
  3. Henry v. Alcove Investment, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1991
  4. SWAB FINANCIAL v. E Trade SecuritiesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
  5. Titan/Value Equities Grp., Inc. v. Superior Court of San Diego Cty.California Court of Appeal · 1994

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. Pinela v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2015
  2. Optimal Markets, Inc. v. SalantCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
  3. Cinel v. ChristopherCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
  4. Gastelum v. Remax International, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2016
  5. Gloster v. Sonic Automotive, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2014

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API