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)

ACCREDITED SURETY AND CASUALTY COMPANY, INC., A CORPORATION VS EDWARD URBAN, ET AL.

All Defendants having now answered the Complaint, in default, or dismissed from the action, Plaintiff brings the instant Motion to Deposit by Stakeholder, for Discharge of Stakeholder, for Attorney’s Fees, and for Temporary Restraining Order (the “Motion”). To date, no opposition has been filed.

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

THE MORTGAGE LAW FIRM, PLC VS ALL CLAIMANTS TO SURPLUS PROCEEDS AFTER THE TRUSTEE'S SALE OF THE REAL PROPERTY

In fact, the Kennedy briefing indicates that Kennedy had applied to the other court for a TRO and OSC re preliminary injunction to stop the foreclosure sale from proceeding in the first place, but that such an application was denied by the court, and the foreclosure obviously proceeded and generated the funds now at issue. [Fernald Decl., para. 14].

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

STEINER V. CEDILLO

The court may also grant a continuance on its own motion. ¶ (2) If the court grants a continuance, any temporary restraining order that has been granted shall remain in effect until the end of the continued hearing, unless otherwise ordered by the court. In granting a continuance, the court may modify or terminate a temporary restraining order.” (Code of Civil Procedure, § 527.6(p)(1).) The court is uncertain that it has authority to issue an order granting a TRO that expires in five years.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

MARCUS R. ELLINGTON, SR. VS STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction Plaintiff moves for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction with respect to denial of care for serious medical need and denial of Kosher food. (Motion, pgs. 4-6.) Plaintiff filed the underlying complaint in the instant action on November 25, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

DAMONE DANIEL, ET AL. VS CITY OF BURBANK, ET AL.

Further, a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction are not remedies that can be sought in a judgment because they are provisional remedies issued to maintain the status quo pending a determination on the merits of the action. The demurrers to the 29th and 30th causes of action for injunctive relief are sustained without leave to amend. C. Motion to Strike In light of the ruling on the demurrer, the motion to strike is taken off-calendar. DISCUSSION RE CITY’S DEMURRER A.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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

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 NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: 1. Appearances 2. Verified declaration by petitioner to state names, current addresses and relationships of all persons entitled to receive notice. LR 7.112 3.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Judge

    Fenstermacher

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

PRIME HEALTHCARE PARADISE VALLEY LLC VS WEST

Plaintiff Prime Healthcare Paradise Valley, LLC's Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction is denied. Preliminary injunctive relief is appropriate only if two interrelated factors are present: (1) the plaintiff is likely to prevail on the merits at trial; and (2) the interim harm the plaintiff is likely to sustain in the absence of an injunction is greater than the harm the defendant will probably suffer if an injunction is issued. (Vo v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ARICA LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS YUKMI, INC., ET AL.

Course of Proceedings On September 9, 2020, the court granted Arica’s ex parte application for temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and order to show cause re: preliminary injunction (“OSC”). The court directed Arica to personally serve Yukmi with the Summons, Complaint, moving papers, and the order by September 10, 2020 and to file the proof of service by September 14, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

KEN Y. PARK, ET AL. VS KWANG TAE KIM, ET AL.

Course of Proceedings On September 2, 2020, the court granted Plaintiffs’ ex parte application for temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and order to show cause re: preliminary injunction (“OSC”). The court noted that the TRO/OSC was based on legal theories of (1) material variance in the amount owed, and (2) failure to provide payoff breakdown per Civil Code section 2943.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

PRIME HEALTHCARE PARADISE VALLEY LLC VS WEST

Plaintiff Prime Healthcare Paradise Valley, LLC's Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction is denied. Preliminary injunctive relief is appropriate only if two interrelated factors are present: (1) the plaintiff is likely to prevail on the merits at trial; and (2) the interim harm the plaintiff is likely to sustain in the absence of an injunction is greater than the harm the defendant will probably suffer if an injunction is issued. (Vo v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

YI HAN VS QINGYUN JIANG

On January 15, 2020, the Court denied Plaintiff’s ex parte application for a temporary restraining order and setting of an order to show cause re: preliminary injunction and appointment of receiver. In denying the ex parte application, the Court noted that “plaintiff did not give notice to defendant of the ex parte application. In addition, the March 3, 2016, e-mail states that no agreement was in effect. Further, plaintiff has not presented evidence that he will prevail on the merits of his claims.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

WILLIAM SZYMCZAK V. NATURAL HEALING CENTER, LLC

The Requests to Deny the Motions as Improper Motions for Reconsideration are Denied On August 20, 2020, the Court considered Plaintiffs’ ex parte request for (1) an order appointing a receiver; (2) a temporary restraining order (“TRO”); and (3) an order to show cause (“OSC”) why a preliminary injunction should not be issued.

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2020

SMITH VS. BANK OF AMERICA

The Temporary Restraining Order issued on December 2, 2019 in this matter shall remain in full force and effect pending the hearing on 11-10-2020. MP to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

SEED BEAUTY, LLC, ET AL. VS KKW BEAUTY, LLC, FORMERLY KKW BEAUTY, INC.

On June 24, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to seal: (1) Plaintiffs’ complaint; (2) exhibit A to Plaintiffs’ complaint; (3) Plaintiffs’ memorandum of points and authorities in support of its application for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and an order to show cause; (4) declaration of Neel Chatterjee in support of Plaintiffs’ ex parte application for a TRO and an order to show cause; (5) exhibit A to the declaration of Neel Chatterjee; and (6) exhibit C to the declaration of Neel Chatterjee.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

JIEYUN CUI VS CHUN-NAN LO, ET AL.

The file shows that on June 7, 2019, the court heard an ex parte application brought by plaintiff for a temporary restraining order, which was granted, and the court ordered that defendant PID-5, LP, care of Pacific International not transfer any interest in funds in a Wells Fargo Bank account. This matter on a writ of attachment was set originally set for hearing on July 26, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

SEED BEAUTY, LLC, ET AL. VS COTY, INC., ET AL.

On July 9, 2020, Kylie filed this motion to seal: (1) Kylie’s opposition to Plaintiffs’ ex parte application for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and order to show cause re preliminary injunctions (opposition to TRO application); (2) Michael Rhodes’ declaration and accompanying exhibits in support of Kylie’s opposition to Plaintiffs’ TRO application (Rhodes’ declaration); (3) Kylie’s motion to compel arbitration; (4) Kylie’s ex parte application to stay pending determination of its motion to compel arbitration

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

CITY OF SANTA MONICA VS CECIL MCNABB, ET AL.,

On June 21, 2019, the Court ordered Golshani to refrain from certain identified conduct, and on March 3, 2020, the Court signed an amended temporary restraining order which enjoined Golshani from entering the subject building, its carport, or its parking area, or coming within fifty feet of the building, and conducting any type of management work affecting the Browning/Nappin family.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

IN RE THE SYLVIA JUNE ASAVIS TRUST DATED MAY 22, 2015

On June 29, 2020, this Court granted Petitioners’ request for a temporary restraining order (TRO), restraining Respondents from: 1. Selling or otherwise disposing of the Atascadero Property during the pendency of this action. 2. Selling or otherwise disposing of any of June’s personal property during the pendency of this action. 3. Preventing Petitioners’ full access to and control over the Atascadero Property during the pendency of this action. 4.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2020

DOSSEGGER VS MERCURIO

Given this ruling, the Temporary Restraining Order (ROA # 47) is dissolved: Defendants are not restricted from offering short term rentals of less than 29 days. Plaintiff's evidentiary objections (ROA # 63) to the Declaration of Adam Ponaman are OVERRULED. Plaintiff's evidentiary objections (ROA # 64) to the Declaration of Josh Mercurio are OVERRULED. Defendants' evidentiary objections (ROA # 68) are OVERRULED.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE VS GOODFELLAS CAFE

Analysis: On August 10, 2020, the Court denied without a hearing the County’s ex parte application for a temporary restraining order and order to show cause re preliminary injunction. No new application has been filed. No motion for a preliminary injunction has been filed. No voluntary dismissal has been entered.

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

DAVID SIMANIAN AND FARIMAH SIMANIAN TRUSTEE OF THE BBJ TRUST VS GREEN WAY HERBAL TRADING, INC., ET AL.

On June 4, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendants alleging causes of action for: (1) nuisance; and (2) temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. On June 5, 2020, the Court issued a notice of an order to show cause hearing, which the Court set for October 5, 2020 at 8:30 a.m. in this department.

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

DRAKE KENNEDY, ET AL. VS BRIAN KENNEDY, ET AL.

This court declined Brian’s request to include a provision in the Order allowing Brian to receive all retroactive back pay, and only permitted it to the date of the TRO. Kirman Decl., Exs. 8 (Ex. C), 9. There is no basis for this court to permit back pay to 2017 and 2018. This is an issue that should be addressed before Judge Burdge. 3.

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

BORSH VS SALTZMAN

This request was originally interposed as an ex parte application for a TRO on August 6, 2020. On that day, the court reviewed the moving papers, and heard argument from Mr. LeVota and Mr. Konoske. The court denied the TRO application, reasoning as follows: "Here, the proposed TRO would require not the preservation of the status quo, but rather a change in the status quo.

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

SHELLY HART VS COURTNEY SULLIVAN, ET AL.

In March 2020, while preparing for the TRO hearing, Plaintiff uncovered new facts when reviewing old emails between herself and Sapp. In May 2020, Morgan produced an email evidencing that it was instructing brokers not to disclose the property’s pending sale to on-site staff. Plaintiff learned about additional complaints against Sullivan by talking to neighbors and former employees and tenants.

  • Hearing

    Sep 14, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

GURNICK ACADEMY OF MEDICAL ARTS VS. BOARD OF VOCATIONAL NURSING & PHYCHIATRIC TECHNICIANS

Gurnick also seeks to broadly enjoin the Board and its staff from taking any action with regard to Gurnick that is not expressly provided for in the Vocational Nursing Practice Act (Bus. & Prof Code, §§ 2840-95.5) and its governing regulations, or in the Business and Professions Code.· On July 2, 2020, · Gurnick filed its Application for Temporary Restraining Order. The Application requested the court to set an ex parte hearing date on the TRO at the earliest opportunity.

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 131     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.