Rideout, Jazzmin vs. First Pitch Entertainment, LLC et al

Therefore, the Court awards a total of $9,568.04 consisting of $6,930 in fees and $2,638.04 in costs.

If no one requests oral argument, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will become the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.

Court reporters are usually not available for law and motion matters in the civil division. The parties and counsel must provide their own reporter if they want a transcript of the proceedings.

Re: Rideout, Jazzmin vs. First Pitch Entertainment, LLC et al Case No.: VCU329435 Date: May 14, 2026 Time: 8:30 A.M. Dept. 1-The Honorable David C. Mathias Motion: Plaintiff's Motion to Lift Stay of Proceedings Pending Appeal Tentative Ruling: To grant the motion, exclusive of all matters wherein the statutory stay under CCP 916 applies.

Plaintiff Jazzmin Rideout moves to lift the stay of this matter, which was ordered incident to Rideout's appeal of this court's order denying her prior motion to enjoin defendant First Pitch Entertainment, LLC, from further contact with putative class members, and for set aside of prior settlements with putative class members (and for sanctions).

Both parties cite Code of Civil Procedure section 916, subdivision (a), which states, in pertinent part and subject to exceptions not relevant here, "the perfecting of an appeal stays proceedings in the trial court upon the ... order appealed from or upon the matters embraced therein or affected thereby..., but the trial court may proceed upon any other matter embraced in the action and not affected by the ... order."

Rideout's motion, ultimately, calls for a narrow determination: That there is no stay in this case broader or different in scope than that arising automatically under section 916. Insofar as that narrow determination is called for, it is appropriate to make it here.

Both parties observe that the only sound legal basis for a stay in this case incident to Rideout's appeal is the automatic stay arising under 916. Accordingly, the court finds Rideout's motion should be granted so that the court's prior stay order is not interpreted to create continuing uncertainty as to the scope of matters stayed by the perfecting of Rideout's appeal.

The court does not purport, here, to decide what matters may or may not properly proceed incident to the automatic stay in effect under section 916; it merely confirms that section 916 defines the entirety of any stay now in effect incident to Rideout's appeal.