The court may issue a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) to preserve the status quo or prevent irreparable harm pending the hearing of an application for preliminary injunction on notice. (Gray v. Bybee (1943) 60 Cal.App.2d 564, 571.)

Legal Standard

A TRO may issue when “[i]t appears from facts shown by affidavit or by the verified complaint that great or irreparable injury will result to the applicant before the matter can be heard on notice.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 527(c)(1).)

“[T]rial courts should evaluate two interrelated factors when deciding whether or not to issue [a restraining order]. The first is the likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits at trial. The second is the interim harm that the plaintiff is likely to sustain if the [restraining order] were denied as compared to the harm that the defendant is likely to suffer if the [order] were issued.” (Church of Christ in Hollywood v. Super. Ct. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1244, 1251.) “The trial court's determination must be guided by a mix of the potential-merit and interim-harm factors; the greater the plaintiff's showing on one, the less must be shown on the other to support a restraining order.... Of course, the scope of available preliminary relief is necessarily limited by the scope of the relief likely to be obtained at trial on the merits.... A trial court may not grant a restraining order, regardless of the balance of interim harm, unless there is some possibility that the plaintiff would ultimately prevail on the merits of the claim.” (Id. at 1251–1252.)

TRO Ex Parte

The court may issue a TRO ex parte where plaintiff has established the probable validity of his claim to possession of the property, provided the appropriate undertaking and “has established the probability that there is an immediate danger that the property claimed may become unavailable to levy by reason of being transferred, concealed, or removed or may become substantially impaired in value.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 513.010.)

Procedure

“A TRO, like a preliminary injunction, is by design to preserve the status quo pending the evidentiary hearing to determine whether to issue a permanent injunction.” (Scripps Health v. Marin (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 324, 334.) Thus, the time frame for determination of TRO issues is to protect the status quo until a hearing on a preliminary injunction; “the burden [is] on plaintiffs, as the parties seeking injunctive relief, to show all elements necessary to support issuance of a preliminary injunction.” (O’Connell v. Super. Ct. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1452, 1481.)

“The party who obtained the temporary restraining order shall, within five days from the date the temporary restraining order is issued or two days prior to the hearing, whichever is earlier, serve on the opposing party a copy of the complaint if not previously served, the order to show cause stating the date, time, and place of the hearing, any affidavits to be used in the application, and a copy of the points and authorities in support of the application. The court may for good cause, on motion of the applicant or on its own motion, shorten the time required by this paragraph for service on the opposing party.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 527(d)(2).)

“When the matter first comes up for hearing, if the party who obtained the temporary restraining order is not ready to proceed, or if the party has failed to effect service as required by paragraph (2), the court shall dissolve the temporary restraining order.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 527(d)(3).)

“In any action, the court may on notice modify or dissolve an injunction or temporary restraining order upon a showing that there has been a material change in the facts upon which the injunction or temporary restraining order was granted, that the law upon which the injunction or temporary restraining order was granted has changed, or that the ends of justice would be served by the modification or dissolution of the injunction or temporary restraining order.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 533; Luckett v. Panos (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 77, 85.) The restrained party has the burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that one of these circumstances is present and justifies a termination of the injunction. (Loeffler v. Medina (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1504.) The trial court may determine that the changed circumstances alleged by the restrained party are not material and, therefore, do not present a reason for terminating the injunction. (Id. at 1506.)