DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
6·orange·Civil·Other
Hearing in 3 days

Malki vs. Karanouh

Motion for Stay of Enforcement of Attorney-Fee Award Pending Appeal

Hearing date
Aug 21, 2026
Department
W8
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Ruling

avoid such, please log in and test your equipment in advance of the hearing. Also, if technological or audibility issues arise during the proceeding, please call (657) 622-5908.

All remote video participants shall comply with the court’s “Guidelines for Remote appearances”, found at https://www.occourts.org/system/files/guidelinesforremoteproceedings.pdf.

IN-PERSON: Parties preferring to appear in-person for a law and motion hearing may do so, consistent with Section 367.75 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Orange County Local Rule 375.

PUBLIC ACCESS: The courtroom remains open for all evidentiary and non-evidentiary proceedings.

No filming, broadcasting, photography, or electronic recording is permitted of the video session pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 1.150 and Orange County Superior Court rule 180.

August 21, 2026

# Case Name 1 Lynd vs. Pancho's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel of Record Restaurant, Inc.

4 Stellantis Financial Application for Writ of Possession Services, Inc. vs. Taylor

5 Bello Guevara vs. Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Dismissal Bayer AG

6 Malki vs. Karanouh Motion for Stay of Enforcement of Attorney-Fee Award Pending Appeal

2

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share