Motion for Order to Stay Proceedings
Plaintiff’s motion is unclear. The notice states that Plaintiff seeks an OSC as to why a preliminary injunction should not issue along with a TRO that mandates Defendants and their agents cease using the family court without subject matter jurisdiction described therein to enforce a void abstract judgment [presumably issued in the family law case between the Clarks, Orange County Superior Court, case no. 05D00275]. Plaintiff is, or has, apparently litigated a matter with the same party in Family Law Court and now seeks to invalidate orders or judgements from that court. Plaintiff must seek any remedies, if there are any, in the court which issued the judgment.
Plaintiff filed an identical motion in the form of an ex parte application on 2/2/26. The Court denied the ex parte application. (ROA 45.) The Court therefore denies the instant motion for the same reasons it denied the ex parte application that sought the same relief; namely, the Court does not have jurisdiction to overrule an order from another Superior Court Judge. The Court further does not find irreparable harm nor danger justifying this motion.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”