How to get a Temporary Restraining Order?

Useful Rulings on Application for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)

Recent Rulings on Application for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)

MR BUILD HOME IMPROVEMENT COMPANY D.B.A. MR BUILD SOLAR ELECTRIC VS CALIN KEELEY

Plaintiff filed its initial Complaint on February 22, 2019, and thereafter filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on May 10, 2019, alleging ten causes of action for (1) Conversion, (2) Breach of Contract, (3) Property Damages, (4) Trespass to Chattel, (5) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (”IIED”), (6) Slander Per Se, (7) Libel, (8) Fraud, (9) ‘Tenacious’ Interference with Existing Contract, (10) Injunction – TRO.

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

DO WOO KIM, ET AL. VS HYUN JONG HAN, ET AL.

Kim & Associates, a Professional Law Corporation, setting forth claims for 1) private nuisance; 2) negligent interference with prospective economic advantage; 3) declaratory relief; 4) conversion; 5) breach of fiduciary duty; 6) constructive fraud; 7) civil conspiracy; 8) constructive trust; 9) accounting; and 10) TRO and preliminary injunction.

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

RE: FIRST AND FINAL REPORT ON WVR OF ACCT, PET’N FOR COMPENSATION,

Motion to Vacate the TRO filed by Adrianne Vincent is set for hearing 1-7-2021.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

NASSER JAVIDZAD VS STRATEGIC ACQUISITIONS, INC.

On November 2, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff's ex parte application for a temporary restraining order and set an OSC re Preliminary Injunction hearing date for December 2, 2020 at 8:30 a.m. As part of that order, Plaintiff's motion in support of the preliminary injunction was ordered filed by November 6, 2020, any opposition by November 17, 2020, and any reply filed by November 22, 2020. Plaintiff did not file his motion for preliminary injunction until November 30, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

MYERS V. VALENTI

The court dissolves the Temporary Restraining Order issued on 11-12-20 under ROA No. 47. The court notes that Plaintiffs filed a Proposed First Amended Supplemental and Derivative and Direct Complaint. The court requests Plaintiffs to file and serve a First Amended Supplemental and Derivative and Direct Complaint rather than a Proposed First Amended Supplemental and Derivative and Direct Complaint.

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2020

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY VS WALKER

The proofs of service state that the document served on the defendants was the “proposed” temporary restraining order and order to show cause re preliminary injunction. If the document served was the proposed OSC rather than the OSC signed by the Court and issued by the clerk, then the service is insufficient. Without proper service, the application cannot be granted, even though there is no opposition appears to have been filed by the defendants.

  • Hearing

    Nov 30, 2020

RAELENE M. RAMOS ET AL. V. LINDA J. BOWLBY, ET AL.

Now before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction.

  • Hearing

    Nov 25, 2020

GREGORY LUCAS VS CITY OF POMONA

Course of Proceedings On April 24, 2020, the court denied Lucas’s ex parte application for temporary restraining order and order to show cause re: preliminary injunction, noting that Lucas provide no evidence of exigency or irreparable harm. The court noted that Lucas waited four months to seek injunctive relief. B. CEQA 1. EIR The purpose of CEQA (§21000 et seq.) is to maintain a quality environment for the people of California both now and in the future. §21000(a).

  • Hearing

    Nov 24, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Course of Proceedings On April 24, 2020, the court denied Lucas’s ex parte application for temporary restraining order and order to show cause re: preliminary injunction, noting that Lucas provide no evidence of exigency or irreparable harm. The court noted that Lucas waited four months to seek injunctive relief. B. CEQA 1. EIR The purpose of CEQA (§21000 et seq.) is to maintain a quality environment for the people of California both now and in the future. §21000(a).

  • Hearing

    Nov 24, 2020

EVELYN LOZADA VS OGOM CHIJINDU

Judicial Notice Lozada requests that the Court take judicial notice of the following: 1. a Temporary Restraining Order filed with this Court; Lozada’s request for judicial notice is granted as to the TRO pursuant to Evid. Code § 452(d). The request is denied as to the remainder, which consist of items and legal contentions which are not properly subject to judicial notice.

  • Hearing

    Nov 20, 2020

TD AUTO FINANCE LLC VS NEW TECH AUTO CARE, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

The complaint, filed June 24, 2020, alleges causes of action for: (1) breach of contract; (2) conversion; (3) claim and delivery; (4) quiet title; and (5) TRO, preliminary and permanent injunctions, and damages.

  • Hearing

    Nov 20, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

THE TERRACE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT MUTUAL BENEFIT CORPORATION VS SAMBIZ AMINI

The court also issued an OSC ordering Defendant to appear on October 8, 2020, and show cause why the court should not issue a preliminary injunction consistent with the above language from the TRO. The ex parte application also requested a TRO and OSC with respect to other alleged conduct of Defendant’s son. The court did not grant the TRO/OSC with respect to such conduct. The OSC is limited to the specific relief described in the TRO/OSC signed by the court on September 16, 2020, and served on Defendant.

  • Hearing

    Nov 19, 2020

RICHARD DIXON VS SCOTT D MCGEE, ET AL.

procedural history Rojo filed the Complaint on August 14, 2020, alleging eleven causes of action: Breach of fiduciary duties Unjust enrichment and constructive trust Conspiracy Injunctive relief – appointment of receiver, TRO Unfair practices Dissolution and winding up of accounting Elder abuse False pretenses Discrimination, harassment, retaliation Unfair practices Dissolution and winding up of accounting On May 29, 2020, Rojo filed the FAC, alleging nine causes of action: Appointment of receiver

  • Hearing

    Nov 19, 2020

PROTECT OUR COMMUNITY NOW VS. POWAY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

TENTATIVE RULING Petitioner/plaintiff Protect Our Community Now's ("POCN") ex parte application for a temporary restraining order is denied. Petitioner has failed to meet its burden to show it would prevail on its claims for a writ of mandate and declaratory relief as to whether respondents unlawfully identified Costco as the most beneficial proposal for the disposition of the surplus real property.

  • Hearing

    Nov 19, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

PROTECT OUR COMMUNITY NOW VS. POWAY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

TENTATIVE RULING Petitioner/plaintiff Protect Our Community Now's ("POCN") ex parte application for a temporary restraining order is denied. Petitioner has failed to meet its burden to show it would prevail on its claims for a writ of mandate and declaratory relief as to whether respondents unlawfully identified Costco as the most beneficial proposal for the disposition of the surplus real property.

  • Hearing

    Nov 19, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

NANCY L. ROJO, MS. VS ROBERT M. ROCHA, ET AL.

procedural history Rojo filed the Complaint on August 14, 2020, alleging eleven causes of action: Breach of fiduciary duties Unjust enrichment and constructive trust Conspiracy Injunctive relief – appointment of receiver, TRO Unfair practices Dissolution and winding up of accounting Elder abuse False pretenses Discrimination, harassment, retaliation Unfair practices Dissolution and winding up of accounting On May 29, 2020, Rojo filed the FAC, alleging nine causes of action: Appointment of receiver

  • Hearing

    Nov 19, 2020

ANDREW COCHRAN VS CP IV PARTHENIA, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

On September 14, 2020, the court denied the ex parte application for temporary restraining order and specially set the hearing for preliminary injunction. Defendants, CP IV Parthenia, LLC, Greystar Worldwide, LLC move for preliminary injunction enjoining Plaintiff Andrew Cochran from communicating with the public on-line or with other tenants about the condition of the property or subject matter of the lawsuit, including defamatory statements about the employees, agents, attorneys and related entities.

  • Hearing

    Nov 18, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

RECON INDUSTRIES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS COMMUNITY ENFORCEMENT PATROL INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

On November 3, 2020, Plaintiff filed a proof of service reflecting that it personally served only the October 27, 2020 order: “I served copies of the Order Granting Preliminary Injunction; Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause Re Preliminary Injunction.” (November 3, 2020 proof of service ¶ 2; see also id. ¶ 5 [personal service].) The only other proof of service as to Caio Ribeiro is Plaintiff’s proof of service filed on September 24, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

DOUGLAS MERIDA VS NJR THREE PROPERTIES LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

Course of Proceedings On October 26, 2020, the court granted Merida’s ex parte application for temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and order to show cause re: preliminary injunction (“OSC”) against NJR only. The court instructed Merida to personally serve Defendants with the Summons, Complaint, and order granting the TRO no later than October 28, 2020 and to file the proof of service by November 5, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2020

FORMOSA FABRIC INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS OMID LAVI, ET AL.

restraining order, preliminary and permanent injunction against Lavi and Arte, (11) unjust enrichment-constructive trust against all Defendants.

  • Hearing

    Nov 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

LYLE HOWRY VS REGINALD MYLABATHULA BENJAMIN, ET AL.

Defendants contend Plaintiff filed this suit in response to Reginald’s correspondence requesting that Plaintiff remove false statements Plaintiff might have made online about Defendants and for Reginald’s filing a temporary restraining order (TRO) against Plaintiff.

  • Hearing

    Nov 16, 2020

17422 DERIAN IRVINE APARTMENTS, LLC VS. A&R CORPORATION, INC.

“By the use of a temporary restraining order if necessary (see Code Civ. Proc., § 527), the plaintiff could secure a hearing before the lien was imposed.” (Connolly, 17 Cal.3d at 822.) There is no indication here that Petitioner sought injunctive relief. The next step after preliminary notice is for a claimant to record a claim of lien. Respondent had to record a lien within 90 days of completing its work on the project, or within 30 days of Petitioner’s notice of completion, whichever date arose sooner.

  • Hearing

    Nov 16, 2020

IN THE MATTER OF RONALD CHARLES GILCHRIST

Review Hearing re Injunction ******************* On 3/3/20, the Court granted an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order and an OSC re preliminary injunction against the sale of the real property located at 1342 Arcane St., Simi Valley. The OSC hearing was continued from 3/19/20 to 4/9/20, 7/9/20, and this date. As of 11/2/20, no notice of this continued hearing date has been filed by Petitioner. Subject to notice, the Court intends to issue the unopposed preliminary injunction.

  • Hearing

    Nov 12, 2020

ALLEN VS JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA

The Temporary Restraining Order granted on October 1, 2020 is ordered dissolved. (ROA 16.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 12, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Course of Proceedings On November 15, 2019, the court granted Church’s ex parte application for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and order to show cause re: preliminary injunction (“OSC”) and set the hearing date for the matter for December 5, 2019. On November 26, 2019, the court denied Defendants’ ex parte application for immediate termination of the TRO and continued the OSC. The court informed the parties that it would not rely on the Complaint as evidence.

  • Hearing

    Nov 12, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 136     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.