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

    Sep 29, 2030

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

    Apr 25, 2026

ANGELA WATSON VS GILBERT A. CABOT

DISCUSSION As a preliminary matter, Defendants’ request for judicial notice of the December 5, 2019, Minute Order and the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) is GRANTED. DEMURRER 1st Cause of Action: Negligent Misrepresentation Statute of Limitations Defendants contend that the 1st cause of action is time-barred because Plaintiff failed to bring the claim within three years of the statute beginning to run.

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

PNC EQUIPMENT FINANCE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS SANTIAGO MENDOZA MUNIZ, AN INDIVIDUAL

Muniz (20PSCV00337) _____________________________________________ Plaintiff PNC Equipment Finance, LLC’s APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT Tentative Ruling Plaintiff PNC Equipment Finance, LLC’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

CHUAN JUN LI VS QI ZHAO

Zhao (KC070595) _____________________________________________ Plaintiff Chuan Jun Li’s APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT Tentative Ruling Plaintiff Chuan Jun Li’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Joma Logistics Inc. (19PSCV00986) _____________________________________________ Plaintiff JCWED Holdings Inc.’s APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT Tentative Ruling Plaintiff JCWED Holdings Inc.’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice. Background This is an unlawful detainer action regarding the premises located at 18400 San Jose Avenue, City of Industry, CA 91748 (“subject premises”). On November 1, 2019, Plaintiff JCWED Holdings Inc.

  • Hearing

    Oct 14, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

RCMI Group (19PSCV00904; R/T 19PSCV00905) _____________________________________________ Plaintiff 2000 Gold Limited Partnership’s APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT Tentative Ruling Plaintiff 2000 Gold Limited Partnership’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice. Background Case No. 19PSCV00904 This is an unlawful detainer case regarding the premises located at 16010 Phoenix Drive, City of Industry, CA 91745.

  • Hearing

    Oct 07, 2020

PISMO BEACH SELF-STORAGE, L.P. V. CITY OF PISMO BEACH, ET AL.

Dye looked more closely at the application and asked that the estimate be broken up into five (5) permits, as each building is required to have its own building permit. (AR 5186.) Ms. Schwartz “then created five applications that included the Impact Fees that were applicable at the time of the application on 5/5/16.” (AR 5186.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 26, 2020

RE: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SET BY VANDY

MAXEY PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need appearances to report status Notes: 1. Deborah Maxey’s Response filed 2-21-20. 2. Per 2-25-20 minute order, the TRO was dissolved and no bond was required; the 3- 19-2020 hearing was to be a status hearing for trial setting. PROBATE EXAMINER NOTE...

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Judge

    Fenstermacher

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

JOSE AGUILERA VS 5 STAR DELIVERY INC

(KC070509) _____________________________________________ Plaintiff Jose Aguilera’s APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT Tentative Ruling Plaintiff Jose Aguilera’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

WEST COVINA CAR STOP, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS ROUND TABLE REMARKETING D.R.S., INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

., et al. (20PSCV00025) _____________________________________________ Plaintiff West Covina Car Stop, LLC dba Ford of West Covina’s APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT Tentative Ruling Plaintiff West Covina Car Stop, LLC dba Ford of West Covina’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

MATTER OF HUMAN POTENTIAL FOUNDATION

Code, §17200)/ Ex Parte Relief (UPDATED 9/18/2020) From the Court’s preliminary review of the petition and related pleadings and documents filed in this matter, it appears that the Court does not, and would not have jurisdiction in this case, even to the extent to entertain, let alone grant the relief being sought by petitioner at the hearing set for Tuesday, September 22, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

WINTEMUTE V. SKT LAW P.C.

The court limits the evidentiary hearing to the issues of authentication and the application of the secondary evidence rule (Evid. Code, § 1521) to the Retainer Letter Agreement attached as Exhibit A to the 3-13-30 declaration of Richard Sullivan. Unless otherwise notified, the court will conduct this hearing remotely. The court will issue an order regarding remote court trial proceedings to the parties.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

BR MARKETING, INC. V. RUSKEY

However, the Application does not demonstrate that the Application and the notice of hearing were served on the State Bar of California in compliance with California Rules of Court, rule 9.40 (c)(1), which provides, “A person desiring to appear as counsel pro hac vice in a superior court must file with the court a verified application together with proof of service by mail in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 1013a of a copy of the application and of the notice of hearing of the application on

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

WEI SI VS ALAN MENG TANG, ET AL.

Otherwise, the general rule of immunity for public entities would be largely eroded by the routine application of general tort principles.” (Eastburn v. Regional Fire Protection Authority (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1175, 1183.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant entrusted the vehicle at issue. (See Complaint, p. 4.) Likewise, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant “negligently . . . entrusted . . . a motor vehicle . . . .” (Complaint, p. 5.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY VS JOSE RODRIGUEZ

Under this statute, an application for relief must be made no more than six months after entry of the order from which relief is sought and must be accompanied by an affidavit of fault attesting to the mistake, inadvertence, surprise or neglect of the moving party or its attorney. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b); English v. IKON Business Solutions (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 130, 143.) The Motion is timely brought six months after dismissal of the action and supported by an attorney declaration of fault.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MARBLE V. CALIFORNIA DINNER ENTERTAINMENT, LLC

Plaintiff asserts, “. . . because Defendants’ subpoenas call for essentially the entirety of Plaintiff’s employment records, including Plaintiff’s tax records, original job application, personal history, all incident reports, entire medical history, all workers compensation claims records, the subpoenas are overbroad, harassing, and violate Plaintiff’s constitutional right of privacy.” (Motion; 9:14-17 (Emphasis in original.).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

GILBERT-BONNAIRE V. DEMERJIAN

The trial court may determine the appropriate amount of fees and costs, upon a proper application by defendants. [Citation.]”

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

DANIEL MCCULLOUGH VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, A PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.

.: 18STCV09107 Hearing Date: September 22, 2020 [Tentative] order RE: MOTION TO CONTEST APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT NOTICE Judge Goorvitch was sworn-in as a Superior Court Judge on December 15, 2015. Prior to that time, Judge Goorvitch made the following campaign contributions to Michael N. Feuer: (1) $100 to Mr. Feuer’s 2008 campaign for the 42nd Assembly District on or about November 9, 2007; (2) $100 to Mr.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

DAWN GIBBS VS RECREATION VEHICLE INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION ET AL

“The court shall, upon timely application, permit a nonparty to intervene in the action or proceeding if either of the following conditions is satisfied: (A) A provision of law confers an unconditional right to intervene.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

REBECCA CASTILLO VS TASTEA HOLDINGS LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

A preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendant from further violations of the UCRA, Civil Code § 51 et seq. with respect to ‘gotastea.com.’ 3. A preliminary and permanent injunction requiring Defendant to take the steps necessary to make gotastea.com readily accessible to and usable by blind and visually-impaired individuals but Plaintiff hereby expressly limits the injunctive relief to require that Defendant expend no more than $50,000 thereon . . .” (Id., 17:22-27, ¶¶2 and 3.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

ML DOE V. DOE 1, A CORP.

The court notes that California Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b), states in part, “A party requesting that a record be filed under seal must file a motion or application for an order sealing the record.” Plaintiff is to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

MAZO V. PACI STRUCTURES, INC.

As to the application of Health and Safety Code section 1799.102, Plaintiffs have presented evidence of a triable issue of material fact as to whether Defendant—Cisneros’ actions constitute gross negligence. PSS Additional Fact No. 14 states, “Sandoval told Cisneros to remain in the truck. Cisneros backed up the truck, but could not see behind him, and because the passenger front door was open, he could not see Mr. Sandoval in the side view mirror.”

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

THOMAS NORIEGA V. DAVID SPURR

The Court intends to grant preliminary approval of the settlement, however, as set forth above, no proposed order was lodged with the Court as required.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

NATIONWIDE AGRIBUSINESS INSURANCE CO. V. GONZALES

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that the proposed FAC was independently filed in this matter on August 3, 2020, two days prior to the motion being filed. The acceptance of the FAC for filing after Defendants’ answer was on file without prior leave of Court was mistaken. (Code Civ. Proc., § 472(a).) The Court, on its own motion, strikes the FAC as filed on August 3, 2020. Next, the Court considers whether leave should be granted to file the FAC.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

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 gather your results.