MOTION FOR STAY OF ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENT PENDING APPEAL
June 9, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 2 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04 ________________________________________________________________________
2:00 PM LINE 1 20-CIV-03642 CYNTHIA A. SMITH VS. STEPHANIE A BEDROSSIAN, ET AL.
CYNTHIA A. SMITH PRO SE STEPHANIE A BEDROSSIAN QUENTIN L. KOPP
MOTION FOR STAY OF ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENT PENDING APPEAL
TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiff Cynthia Smith’s unopposed motion for stay of enforcement of the judgment pending resolution of her appeal is GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc. § 918 [trial court may stay the enforcement of any judgment or order, whether or not an appeal will be taken from the judgment or order and whether or not a notice of appeal has been filed].) The court decides this motion even though Smith filed the appeal before requesting a stay because it is an ancillary matter not embraced or affected by the judgment. (See Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino (2005) 35 Cal.4th 180, 189 [discussing when trial court has jurisdiction during appeal].) The stay maintains the status quo with Smith living in the house in which she has resided for many years pending appeal. Defendants, who have not opposed the motion, offer no arguments to the contrary.
Plaintiff’s request for waiver of bond requirements due to personal hardship and indigency is GRANTED. (Sarkany v. West (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 801, 808 [statute allowing waiver of bond requirements due to indigency applied to bond required to stay money judgment pending appeal].) Although Smith offers no evidence in support of her status and simply refers to her fee waiver, the court, having been the single-assigned judge since December 11, 2020 and having presided over the trial where Smith’s financial situation was admitted and there being no opposition by defendants, the court finds that waiver of the bond appropriate in this case.
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?”
If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court. Thereafter, Smith shall prepare a written order consistent with the court’s ruling for the court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court.