ORDER denying 14 Motion to Stay. See minute entry of motion hearing held on 7/24/2024. Ordered by Magistrate Judge James R. Cho on 9/17/2024. (SGC)
Case Summary
Magistrate Judge James R. Cho denied the defendant's motion to stay the proceedings. The denial was issued following a motion hearing on July 24, 2024. The court's refusal to stay indicates the case will proceed without delay from the defendant's requested pause.
Latest development
ORDER denying 14 Motion to Stay. See minute entry of motion hearing held on 7/24/2024. Ordered by Magistrate Judge James R. Cho on 9/17/2024. (SGC)
Order · May 11, 2026
Judge James denied Motion to Stay.
Key Issues
- • Motion to stay denied
- • Proceedings continue
- • Motion hearing on July 24, 2024
Docket Snapshot
Court
Court not identified
Awaiting court metadata
Docket
Not captured
Civil
Stage
Court order issued
Active
Filed
Date unavailable
Not in the available feed
Latest Filing
ORDER denying 14 Motion to Stay. See minute entry of motion hearing held on 7/24/2024. Ordered by Magistrate Judge
Order · May 11, 2026
Coverage
0 articles
0 sources tracked
Participants
Parties not parsed yet
1 linked entity
Judge
What the record shows
The court metadata has not been resolved yet, so Juryvine is keeping the page conservative until a reliable court match lands.
The newest docket activity we have is a order dated May 11, 2026.
Party extraction has not produced a reliable plaintiff/defendant graph yet, so no speculative names are shown.
No independent press coverage is attached yet; this page is currently docket-led rather than media-led.
The Story So Far
Magistrate Judge James R. Cho denied a motion to stay on September 17, 2024, following a motion hearing held on July 24, 2024. The order rejects the request to pause proceedings, signaling the court's intent to allow the case to move forward without delay.
The denial came in response to a motion filed as docket entry 14, though the specific court and case details remain undisclosed. The ruling suggests the judge found no sufficient grounds to halt the litigation at this stage. The case remains active, with no indication that either party has sought immediate reconsideration or appealed the decision.
The judge’s refusal to stay could impact the parties’ litigation strategies, especially if one side sought to delay discovery or other pretrial activities. The record does not clarify the underlying reasons for the motion to stay or the arguments presented at the hearing.
The case’s docket number and court remain unknown, limiting insight into the broader context or subject matter. Still, the denial of a stay typically reflects the court’s assessment that proceeding now serves judicial efficiency or the interests of justice better than postponement.
The next procedural steps will likely proceed on the existing schedule unless the parties move for other relief or the court issues further orders. The case remains under Magistrate Judge Cho’s supervision, who will oversee subsequent motions or discovery disputes as they arise.
update What Changed This Week
receipt_long Source expand_more
ORDER denying 14 Motion to Stay. See minute entry of motion hearing held on 7/24/2024. Ordered by Magistrate Judge James R. Cho on 9/17/2024. (SGC)
Juryvine summaries are generated from court records. Expand "Source" on any row to see the underlying filing.
Case Timeline
1 eventORDER denying 14 Motion to Stay. See minute entry of motion hearing held on 7/24/2024. Ordered by Magistrate Judge James R. Cho on 9/17/2024. (SGC)
Judge James denied Motion to Stay.
settings_backup_restore Data provenance expand_more
Sources tracked
0 outlets · 0 articles
Timeline events
1 record on file
Last updated
15 minutes ago
Juryvine aggregates docket entries from PACER/CourtListener, press coverage, and GDELT signals. Ingestion timestamps do not appear in the What Changed feed — that reflects real court activity only.