What is an Application for Preliminary Injunction?

Useful Rulings on Application for Preliminary Injunction

Recent Rulings on Application for Preliminary Injunction

1-25 of 10000 results

PRICE VS THE CITY OF ANAHEIM

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction Provided that the City will stipulate to a preliminary injunction with respect to the provisions of Ordinance No. 6374 relating to immediate warrantless access to the short-term rental (STR) units, the Court DENIES the application for a preliminary injunction in all other respects, WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

  • Hearing

T-12 THREE, LLC VS. TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

Plaintiffs produced sufficient evidence in opposition to that motion showing the existence of triable issues of fact as to the application of equitable estoppel, and have produced evidence sufficient to show triable issues of material fact as to equitable estoppel in opposition to the current motion as well. (Opp. SSUF ¶422.)

  • Hearing

PERSOLVE LEGAL GROUP, LLP VS LETICIA HERNANDEZ

Hernandez (20PSCV00371) _____________________________________________ Plaintiff Persolve Legal Group, LLP’s APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT Tentative Ruling See below. Background Plaintiff Persolve Legal Group, LLP (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows: On or about December 13, 2017, Plaintiff’s assignor, Compass Bank, loaned monies to Leticia Hernandez (“Hernandez”), which loan was memorialized by a promissory note (“note”).

  • Hearing

CEMEX USA, INC. VS ATILANO, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

., et al. (20PSCV00550) _____________________________________________ Plaintiff Cemex USA, Inc.’s APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT Tentative Ruling Plaintiff Cemex USA Inc.’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice. Background Plaintiff Cemex USA, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows: On or about November 15, 2011, Plaintiff and Atilano, Inc.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

717 NOGALES, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS NEW DIAMOND TRUCKING, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION AND, ET AL.

., et al. (20PSCV00085) _____________________________________________ Plaintiff 717 Nogales, LLC’s APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT Tentative Ruling Plaintiff 717 Nogales, LLC’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice. Background Plaintiff 717 Nogales, LLC (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows: Plaintiff is the owner of the industrial property known as 719 Nogales Street, City of Industry, California 91749 (“subject property”).

  • Hearing

MARK LIU VS XUEFAN LIU

Liu (19PSCV00397) _____________________________________________ Plaintiff Mark Liu’s APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT Tentative Ruling Plaintiff Mark Liu’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice. Background Plaintiff Mark Liu (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows: On or about March 2019, Plaintiff and Defendant Xuefan Liu (“X.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

AVITUS INC. VS ANDIAMO MANAGEMENT COMPANY, A CORPORATION, ET AL.

Andiamo Management Company (19PSCV00240) _____________________________________________ Plaintiff Avitus, Inc.’s APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT Tentative Ruling Plaintiff Avitus, Inc.’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice. Background Plaintiff Avitus, Inc.

  • Hearing

CHANGLIANG DAI VS THOMAS CHEN, ET AL.

The parties further agreed that Tissuesco and Chen would refund Plaintiff $105,000.00 if the via application was denied; Chen made a personal guarantee in this regard. Plaintiff’s L-1 visa application was submitted on August 20, 2018; Tissuesco and Chen agreed to refund Plaintiff if the application was not approved until August 20, 2019. On August 20, 2019, Plaintiff contacted Tissuesco and Chen about the refund, because his application was still pending.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ALLSTATE SETTLEMENT CORPORATION VS J. E.

Section 10139.5(f)(2) requires that a notice of the proposed transfer and the application for its authorization be filed with the court and served on all interested parties not less than 20 days prior to the scheduled hearing on any petition for approval of a transfer of structured settlement payment rights. Sufficient notice has been provided. The transfer agreement complies with the required elements in Insurance Code § 10139.5. The petition is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC VS NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA COR~ORATION

New Century Mortgage Corporation, et al. (19PSCV00982) _____________________________________________ Plaintiff Nationstar Mortgage LLC dba Champion Mortgage Company’s APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT Tentative Ruling Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment has been set for a default prove-up hearing on December 3, 2020 (see below).

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

LUZ BELTRAN, ET AL. VS NICHOLAS SCHWARTZ, ET AL.

Schwartz, et al. (19PSCV01170) _____________________________________________ Plaintiffs Luz Beltran’s and Antonio Navarro’s APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT Tentative Ruling Plaintiffs Luz Beltran’s and Antonio Navarro’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

IN THE MATTER OF ERIC ROSENBERG

Preliminary distributions require court supervision, not mere consent of the heirs, except in limited circumstances not applicable here. (Prob. Code §§ 10520, 10501(a)(4).) According to Petitioner, the estate was paid $131,945.25 by Rentzer, representing 24% of attorney fees Rentzer collected on behalf the decedent's law practice.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Probate

  • Sub Type

    Trust

JEFFREY NATHAN PURVEY VS YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF BURBANK, CALIFORNIA

“Items not mentioned in [Section 1033.5] and items assessed upon application may be allowed or denied in the court’s discretion.” (Id., subd. (c)(4).) On a motion to tax, “[i]f the items appearing in a cost bill appear to be proper charges, the burden is on the party seeking to tax costs to show that they were not reasonable or necessary. On the other hand, if the items are properly objected to, they are put in issue and the burden of proof is on the party claiming them as costs.

  • Hearing

FUNDATION GROUP LLC VS BINH NGUYEN, ET AL.

., et al. (19PSCV00701) _____________________________________________ Plaintiff Fundation Group LLC’s APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT Tentative Ruling Plaintiff Fundation Group LLC’s Application for Default Judgment is GRANTED. The court reduces attorney’s fees to $2,005.74.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

ADRIAN MADDEN VS GURUCUL SOLUTIONS, LLC

The moving party must lodge the record with the court in a separate envelope when the motion or application is made, unless good cause exists for not lodging it or it has been lodged previously. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)(4) and (d).) The lodged record is conditionally under seal pending the judge's determination of the motion or application. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)(4).)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

FROM THE EARTH, LLC VS CITY OF COMMERCE, ET AL.

When Plaintiff would not agree to the illegal kickbacks demanded by defendant Beltran, defendant Beltran intervened in Plaintiffs application process to tortiously conspire with defendant City of Commerce to illegally deny Plaintiffs cannabis license application.” (Complaint, ¶ 5.) On September 22, 2020, Plaintiff From the Earth, LLC commenced this action against Defendants City of Commerce and Mario Beltran.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

DAVID LAHYANI VS ROBERT SCOTT REHLING ET AL

“Among the requirements for application of the section 474 relation-back doctrine is that the new defendant in an amended complaint be substituted for an existing fictitious Doe defendant named in the original complaint.” (Id.) Here, Defendant contends that the Doe Amendments against Maddy and Janeen are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. However, Defendant fails to address the relation back doctrine as far as the amendments relate back to the complaint filed on 7/17/18.

  • Hearing

TAMEKA DIXON, ET AL. VS EDGAR S. GONZALEZ, ET AL.

Application for this relief … shall be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken. … A mistake is a basis for relief under CCP § 473 when by reason of the mistake a defendant failed to make a timely response. Surprise occurs when a Defendant is unexpectedly placed in a position to his injury without any negligence of his own.

  • Hearing

BAHRAM JARIDIAN VS SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC., ET AL.

“When a plaintiff reasonably should have discovered facts for purposes of the accrual of a cause of action or application of the delayed discovery rule is generally a question of fact, properly decided as a matter of law only if the evidence (or, in this case, the allegations in the complaint and facts properly subject to judicial notice) can support only one reasonable conclusion.” (Broberg v. The Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 912, 921.)

  • Hearing

ELEAZAR URIZAR VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (LACMTA), ET AL.

The decision whether to grant or deny an application for withdrawal is within the court's discretion, and it does not abuse that discretion by denying the application on the ground that the attorney's withdrawal would work injustice upon a third party. (Hodcarriers, Bldg. and Common Laborers Local Union No. 89 v. Miller (1966) 243 Cal.App.2d 391; Heple v. Kluge (1951) 104 Cal.App.2d 461.) The rules have been liberally construed to protect clients. (Vann v. Shilleh, supra, 54 Cal.App.3d 192; Chaleff v.

  • Hearing

ALPIN PATEL VS BRYAN ALLAN PAYTON, ET AL.

In re Laventhol & Horwath (1992) 1992 WL 88184 at 2 [“[B]ankruptcy court has the power, in corporate and partnership bankruptcy cases, to grant a preliminary injunction staying litigation against non-debtors when such actions have a significant impact on the Debtor.”].) Therefore, Defendant Dorman does not establish discovery is stayed as to him. 3.

  • Hearing

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY VS EMMA GRISHAI SARKISJAN, ET AL.

A party seeking judgment on the default by the Court must file a Request for Court Judgment, and: (1) a brief summary of the case; (2) declarations or other admissible evidence in support of the judgment requested; (3) interest computations as necessary; (4) a memorandum of costs and disbursements; (5) a proposed form of judgment; (6) a dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought; (7) a dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment under

  • Hearing

CATHY LOGISTICS, INC. VS BLAKE B OSBORNE, ET AL.

Osborne, et al. (19PSCV00758) _____________________________________________ Plaintiff Cathy Logistics, Inc.’s APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT Tentative Ruling Plaintiff Cathy Logistics, Inc.’s Application for Default Judgment is GRANTED [see below]. Background Plaintiff Cathy Logistics, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows: Plaintiff operates a warehousing and delivery service.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ORLI SANTOS, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS LA PROPERTIES HEFFESSE LLC, LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

An application to amend a pleading is addressed to the trial judge’s sound discretion. (Id.) If the motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend and where the refusal also results in a party being deprived of the right to assert a meritorious cause of action or a meritorious defense, it is not only error but an abuse of discretion. (Morgan v. Superior Court of Cal.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

ROSE FAY ARFA VS RONEN S. GRACE

Defendant Elise argues that she has applied for a variance of the City’s fence height requirements and that the Court should stay this proceeding in favor of an administrative hearing set to take place on the application. The application was given case number ZA-2019-6266-ZAA. On its own motion, the Court takes judicial notice of the fact that there is a hearing currently scheduled for the application in case no.

  • Hearing

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 400     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.