Application for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) in California

Tentative Ruling: To discharge the order to show cause and dissolve the temporary restraining order. Explanation: On February 15, 2017, Plaintiff filed an ex-parte application for a temporary restraining order and an order to show cause for a preliminary injunction to prevent the foreclosure sale of property located in Fresno, California. The ex parte was denied. On February 28, 2017, Plaintiff filed a second ex-parte application seeking the same relief.

“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.” C.C.P. § 533.

At times, the Motion for TRO explicitly requests a temporary restraining order, while at other times the Motion for TRO explicitly requests a preliminary injunction. (See, for example, Motion for TRO, pp. 8:1921, 10:1617.) Ultimately, the clearest indication of what Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants seek comes from their Proposed Order, which seeks a temporary restraining order and an order to show cause why the Court should not issue a preliminary injunction. (Proposed Order, pp. 24.)

Code of Civil Procedure § 527(d)(3) provides that “[w]hen 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 … the court shall dissolve the temporary restraining order.” Plaintiff has failed to effect service as required by the relevant statute. Accordingly, the Court now dissolves Plaintiff’s TRO and the application for the preliminary injunction is accordingly denied.

Tentative Ruling on Plaintiff, Inderjit Singh Nijjar and JNB Property LLC’s (“plaintiffs,”) Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Order to Show Cause and Temporary Restraining Order] originally set for hearing on October 5, 2018 and continued by stipulation of the parties for hearing on November 7, 2018 in Dept. 10C: The court was unable to locate the proof of service on or the Order to Show Cause and Temporary Restraining Order (“OSC/TRO”) that the Court ordered be prepared on September 18, 2018 [See Minute Order

HEARING ON OSC RE: PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION & TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER * TENTATIVE RULING: * This is a property-line dispute between residential neighbors. Defendant has threatened to build a wall along what she claims is the proper boundary line, which would partially obstruct a pathway along the side of plaintiffs’ house. Plaintiffs obtained a temporary restraining order prohibiting the building of that wall, pending the Court’s determination of the property boundary line.

Providence Saint Johns Health Center, Case No. 21SMCV01884 Hearing Date December 3, 2021 Plaintiffs Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order Plaintiff physician alleging defendants wrongfully suspended her from treating patients. Plaintiff seeks a TRO allowing her to treat her pregnant patients, including one who is 41 weeks pregnant (Katrine Magas).

Nature of Proceedings: Hearing: Re Temporary Restraining Order TENTATIVE RULING: For the reasons set forth herein, the temporary restraining order issued by the court on January 15, 2015, is dissolved. Background: On January 12, 2015, plaintiff Marsha Zilles filed her complaint in this action for declaratory relief and injunctive relief regarding a pending foreclosure of property owned in part by plaintiff.

Elyasazdeh, Case No. 21SMCP00018 Hearing Date December 3, 2021 Defendants Application to Declare Creditors Suit Lien Dissolved Plaintiffs Motion for Temporary Restraining Order On November 15, 2021 this court continued defendants ex parte application for an order dissolving creditors suit lien to December 3, 2021, to be heard simultaneously with plaintiffs motion for a temporary restraining order.

An OSC must be used when a temporary restraining order (TRO) is sought[.]” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1150(a).) “No preliminary injunction shall be granted without notice to the opposing party.” (Code Civ. Proc. §527(a).)

Case No. 21STCV06565 Hearing Date: March 19, 2021 [Tentative] ORDER REISSUING OSC RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER On March 2, 2021, this court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) and order to show cause re preliminary injunction

Pursuant to CCP §527(d)(2), “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.”

Disposition CCP section 527, subdivision (d)(3), provides “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 … the court shall dissolve the temporary restraining order.” Here, as discussed above, Plaintiff has failed to effect service as required by the relevant statute.

To find the court's website go to: www.courts.ca,gow/find-my-court.him. @) Temporary Restraining Order a.

To find the court's website go to: www.courts.ca,gow/find-my-court.him. @) Temporary Restraining Order a.

To find the court's website go to: www.courts.ca,gow/find-my-court.him. @) Temporary Restraining Order a.

To find the court's website go to: www.courts.ca,gow/find-my-court.him. @) Temporary Restraining Order a.

To find the court's website go to: www.courts.ca,gow/find-my-court.him. @) Temporary Restraining Order a.

Is service of the temporary restraining order (TRO) and order to show cause (OSC) proper in the manner described by California Rules of Court (CRC) rule 3.1150(a), and the relevant portions of the CCP, or alternatively, has the lender or the trustee agreed to accept service via facsimile and regular mail? 3. Did the TRO and OSC substantially comply with CRC rule 3.1150(c)? 4.

Notice Of Motion And Motion To Appoint Receiver And For Temporary Restraining Order Set for hearing on Friday, January 22, 2010, line 2, PLAINTIFFS ANDRE CHANDRA, SATYA ADAPA Motion To Appoint Receiver and For Temporary Restraining Order. TRO and appointment of receiver is denied. =(302/PHA)

When the matter first comes up for hearing, & if the party has failed to effect service as required by paragraph (2), the court shall dissolve the temporary restraining order. (CCP § 527(d)(3).) Upon the filing of an affidavit by the applicant that the opposing party could not be served within the time required by paragraph (2), the court may reissue any temporary restraining order previously issued.

Pursuant to CCP §527(d)(2), “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.”

Court Hearing DV-116, Page 1 of 3 Family Code, § 245 (Temporary Restraining Order) (CLETS-TRO) > (Domestic Violence Prevention)Case Number: FL 1201435 (6) Reason Court Date Is Rescheduled a.

Hearing Of Order To Show Cause Re: Preliminary Injunction And Temporary Restraining Order Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for Thursday, October 9, 2014, line 3. Hearing Of Order To Show Cause Re: Preliminary Injunction And Temporary Restraining Order OFF CALENDAR, no proof of service filed re: Quality Loan Services and Bank of New York as required by September 19, 2014. TRO is dissolved. = (501/REQ)

“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 Civ. Proc., § 527(d)(3).)

Plaintiff applied to the court for a writ of possession pursuant to CCP § 512.010 and asked for a temporary restraining order pursuant to CCP § 513.010. On June 24, 2010, the court issued a temporary restraining order restraining defendants from transferring any interest or otherwise disposing of or encumbering all machinery, equipment, furniture, fixtures, inventory, accounts, contract rights, documents, instruments, chattel papers, and general intangibles.

EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TRO ORCHARD ESTATE HOMES, CVPS2202426 AND OSC RE PRELIMINARY INC. V. SANAMYAN INJUNCTION Tentative Ruling: The plaintiff’s request for a temporary restraining order is denied. The request for an order to show cause as to why a preliminary injunction should not be issued is granted.

EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TRO ORCHARD ESTATE HOMES, CVPS2202426 AND OSC RE PRELIMINARY INC. V. SANAMYAN INJUNCTION Tentative Ruling: The plaintiff’s request for a temporary restraining order is denied. The request for an order to show cause as to why a preliminary injunction should not be issued is granted.

EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TRO ORCHARD ESTATE HOMES, CVPS2202426 AND OSC RE PRELIMINARY INC. V. SANAMYAN INJUNCTION Tentative Ruling: The plaintiff’s request for a temporary restraining order is denied. The request for an order to show cause as to why a preliminary injunction should not be issued is granted.

The Temporary Restraining Order/Order to Show Cause (“TRO/OSC”) which this Court issued requires that Plaintiffs demonstrate personal service on Defendants as of 4:30 p.m. on July 16, 2019. Plaintiffs have not yet filed any proof of service. The Court finds it appropriate to give Plaintiffs one more chance but may not do so again if Plaintiffs again fail to cure the defect. The Temporary Restraining Order issued July 15, 2019, shall expire on October 18, 2019, at 11:59 p.m.

In light of the removal to federal court, and in the absence of a remand to this court prior to the hearing, the Order to Show Cause re Preliminary Injunction is ordered off calendar and the Temporary Restraining Order imposed by this court is ordered dissolved.

Tentative Ruling on plaintiff, California Milk Producers Advisory Board’s (“plaintiff,”) motion for a preliminary injunction set for hearing on October 18, 2018 in Dept. 10C: The court issued a Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause (“TRO/OSC”) on October 5, 2018 directed to defendant, James W. Jones, aka Jim Jones (“defendant.”)

The temporary restraining order is dissolved.

I understand that any orders already made by the court on Form DV-I 10, Temporary Restraining Order will end on the hearing date.” Conclusion The matter should go off calendar

If the proposed order and undertaking is not submitted by that date, the temporary restraining order issued by the court shall terminate; otherwise, the temporary restraining order shall continue in effect until the preliminary injunction order is filed and effective.

HEARING ON OSC RE: PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION * TENTATIVE RULING: * On September 26, 2016, the Court issued a temporary restraining order and an order to show cause following an ex parte application by plaintiff in this case. Code of Civil Procedure section 527(d)(2) required plaintiff to serve the OSC, the points and authorities supporting the issuance of the TRO, and other materials, on defendant within five (5) days of the issuance of the TRO.

PLAINTIFF NANCY MGGINNIS' Notice Of Motion And Motion For Order Granting Relief From Violation Of Temporary Restraining Order Or, In The Alternative, December 7 And December 14 Minute Orders Re Real Property Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED. TRO expired by its own terms before December 31, 2020. Unlike in Wutchumna Water Co. v.

The request for a preliminary injunction is therefore denied, and the temporary restraining order is dissolved.

* TENTATIVE RULING: * The Order to Show Cause is discharged and the Temporary Restraining Order issued October 15, 2018 (the “TRO”) is dissolved. Plaintiff has not filed proof that the TRO was served on defendants DeLeon and Marantha. (CCP § 527 (a), (d)(2), and (d)(3).) After 1/2/19 this case is assigned to Hon. Jill Fannin, Dept. 21.

Tro And Other Relief GRANT-TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER. (302/EHG/JT)

Merits Again, on November 14, 2018, Plaintiff’s “Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause Regarding Preliminary Injunction” was heard; at that time, the court issued a temporary restraining order and set an OSC Re: Preliminary Injunction for November 28, 2018. The court dissolved the temporary restraining order on November 28, 2018, because Hernandez had not been served with the TRO and OSC re preliminary injunction.

The minute order states that “[i]t is further ordered that the temporary restraining order issued on 4/6/18 is hereby set aside and vacated.” As to Plaintiff’s contention that the court’s order as announced in open court was to deny the request to vacate the TRO, there is no evidence of that other than the uncorroborated declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel. (See Motion, Silver Decl., ¶2.)

Patel CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited CASE TYPE: Intellectual Property EVENT TYPE: Ex Parte Ex Parte Application for Writ of Possession, Temporary Restraining Order, Evidence Preservation Order, Expedited Discovery Order, and Order to Show Cause Re Preliminary Injunction MOVING PARTY: Corcept Therapeutics Incorporated CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Ex Parte Application - Other for Writ of Possession, Temporary Restraining Order, Evidence Preservation

The OSC of Plaintiff NANCY REICHEL ("Plaintiff") why a preliminary injunction should not issue is OFF CALENDAR in that Plaintiff has not filed with the Court proof of service of the temporary restraining order ("TRO") as well as Plaintiff's moving papers on Defendants SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, LLC, WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Successor Trustee to Citibank, N.A., as Trustee for Bear Stearns, Asset Backed Securities Trust 2007-2, and Asset Backed Certificates, Series 2007-2 ("Defendants") (ROA

Nature of Proceedings: OSC TRO (DV) This is a DV-109 [Domestic Violence] Notice of Hearing. On 4/22/13 Carmen Madrigal (“Madrigal”) filed a request for a TRO (Temporary Restraining Order) that Commissioner Motter denied until the hearing because her declaration did not describe in sufficient detail the most recent incidents of abuse. Gerardo Figueroa has filed no response. I could NOT find that the TRO was served on Gerardo Figueroa. There is no Proof of Service in the file.

The court may issue a temporary restraining order 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.) Where a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) is sought, the court may issue the TRO and at the same time order the defendant to “show cause” why a preliminary injunction should not be issued. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1150(c).)

Defendants’ application for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”), and request for an order to show cause as to why a preliminary injunction should not issue, is GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 526, subd. (b).) Having granted the application for TRO, the request for appointment of a provisional director is DENIED AS MOOT. If no hearing is requested, this tentative ruling is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1312, or further notice is required.

Nature of Proceedings: OSC TRO (DV) This is a DV-109 [Domestic Violence] Notice of Hearing. On 4/22/13 Kaylin Fox (“Fox”) filed a request for a TRO (Temporary Restraining Order) that Commissioner Motter had granted.

The Temporary Restraining Order was issued on August 5, 2015. John Doe 2 was served with the TRO but there is no proof of service establishing that he was served with a copy of the summons and complaint. John Doe 1 was served with the summons and complaint. His default was entered on August 14, 2015. There is no service upon John Doe 4. Plaintiff requests that the Court issue a preliminary injunction against John Doe 2 as he has not responded to the TRO.

If the opposing party obtains a continuance under this paragraph, the temporary restraining order shall remain in effect until the date of the continued hearing.”

“When the matter first comes up for hearing, ... if the party has failed to effect service as required by paragraph (2), the court shall dissolve the temporary restraining order.” (CCP § 527(d)(3).) “Upon the filing of an affidavit by the applicant that the opposing party could not be served within the time required by paragraph (2), the court may reissue any temporary restraining order previously issued.

The court granted a temporary restraining order ("TRO") staying a foreclosure on September 29, 2023. (ROA 15.) Plaintiff was required to serve Defendants with the TRO and notice of the Order to Show Cause hearing. (Cal. R. Court, rule 3.1150(a).) No proof of service has been filed. Further, no motion papers have been filed. The court orders the TRO dissolved. Event ID: 3031070 TENTATIVE RULINGS Calendar No.: 13 Page: 1

SPECIAL SET HEARING ON: TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST ZLAJ INVESTMEN SET BY COURT * TENTATIVE RULING: * Continued by the Court to April 14, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. The TRO remains in effect until the hearing.

Nature of Proceedings: OSC TRO (DV) The person asking for protection, after denial of the sought after Temporary Restraining Order, has filed (on 1/5/15) a request to cancel the hearing. Ruling: Off calendar.

Order To Show Cause Re Preliminary Injunction And Tro Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for Monday, October 8, 2013, line 4 Order To Show Cause Regarding Preliminary Injunction And Temporary Restraining Order; Hearing Required. = (501/REQ)

Based on the court’s 3-12-19 Minute Order, Cross-Complainant’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and Injunctive Relief (filed on 2-13-19) is off calendar because the court ruled on this motion on 3-12-19.

Order To Show Cause For Tro And Preliminary Injunction Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for Monday, December 23, 2013, line 10. Order To Show Cause For Temporary Restraining Order And Preliminary Injunction. OFF CALENDAR, dismissal filed. = (501/REQ)

Nature of Proceedings: Temporary Restraining Order Plaintiffs’ Request for Temporary Restraining Order Rulings: 1. The Request for a TRO is denied. SCE has already initiated the removal of the subject power poles based upon its response to the initial request. The Court finds that their response to the initial request is persuasive. 2. Plaintiffs raise new issues in their Reply. The Court finds it is counterproductive to simply reject their new issues since it will only draw a new ex parte motion.

Nature of Proceedings: OSC CS/Atty Fees/SS/Residence Exclusion & Alcohol Testing; OSC TRO (DV) My file reflects all issues have been continued to 11/16 including the DV issues; stipulation filed 11/5; temporary restraining order re-issued on 11/8.

Application For Appointment Of Receiver And Tro; Ntc Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for Tuesday, November 19, 2013, line 3. PLAINTIFF ANNE SCONBERG Application For Appointment Of Receiver And Tro; Notice. Continued to January 14, 2014. Opposition and reply are due in accordance with new hearing date. Temporary Restraining Order remains in effect.

The procedural history of the case is as follows: The Court denied the County’s temporary restraining order (TRO) on July 28, 2021. The reason for the denial was in part because the Defendants orally represented that all offending cannabis plants had already been removed.

Order To Show Cause Hearing On Whether Tro Shall Become Permanent Set for hearing on Tuesday, September 16, 2008, line 9. PLAINTIFF FRANCES TORRES' ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING ON WHETHER THE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER SHALL BECOME PERMANENT. A hearing is required. =(302/PJM/VC)

On November 28, 2018, the court dissolved the temporary restraining order issued on November 14, 2018, reissued a temporary restraining order on that date and set an Order to Show Cause Re: Preliminary Injunction for December 18, 2018. On December 18, 2018, the court denied Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction and dissolved the temporary restraining order.

Now, before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO), wherein he requests the Court issue an order “to prevent Defendant from destroying or altering any documents/data whether stored digitally or not.”

Order To Show Cause Re Preliminary Injunction And Tro Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for Thursday, September 19, 2013, line 7. -Order To Show Cause Re Preliminary Injunction And Temporary Restraining Order. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is continued to October 4, 2013 on Court's own motion. = (501/PJB)

Tro To Postpone A Non-Judicial Foreclosure And Osc Re Preliminary Injunction Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for Wednesday, June 19, 2015, line 8. Hearing Re Temporary Restraining Order To Postpone A Non-Judicial Foreclosure And Order to show cause Regarding Preliminary Injunction: Hearing Required. (501/REQ)

(See CCP 1013(e)) The Aug. 18, 2016 Temporary Restraining Order is hereby dissolved.

On 3/29/21, Plaintiffs submitted an ex parte application for temporary restraining order (TRO) and OSC for preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the trustee’s sale which was scheduled to occur on 4/1/21. The request for TRO was granted per the Court’s minute order dated 3/30/21. However, the trustee’s sale went forward on 4/1/21. Defendant FCI Lender Services, Inc. (“Defendant”) contends it did not receive notice of the application for TRO or the 3/30/21 order.

Kristjansson CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited CASE TYPE: Breach of Contract/Warranty EVENT TYPE: Ex Parte Ex Parte for temporary restraining order and OSC re preliminary injunction MOVING PARTY: Norman W Mead CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Ex Parte Application - Other for Temporary Restraining Order and Issuance of an Order to Show Cause; Supporting Declaration of Timothy F Shields; Declaration Re: Notice; Memorandum of Points and Authorities, 12

Nature of Proceedings: OSC TRO (DV) This is a DV-109 [Domestic Violence] Notice of Hearing. On 4/22/13 Kaylin Fox (“Fox”) filed a request for a TRO (Temporary Restraining Order) that Commissioner Motter had granted.

Restraining Order be continued until after the Dissolution of Marriage case is resolved and Respondent’s criminal case is resolved; requests that the TRO be continued for status review for 90 days and be calendared with the CMC.

The May 11, 2017 temporary restraining order is dissolved per this Court's May 11, 2017 ex parte order. The Court also notes Plaintiff failed to prepare a written order after hearing as was required in that May 11, 2017 minute order. There is also no proof of service in the Court records showing Defendant was provided with the terms of the TRO. Thus, the TRO was never in effect.

Case No. 21STCV06565 Hearing Date: April 9, 2021 [Tentative] ORDER DENYING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND DISSOLVING TRO On March 2, 2021, this court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) and order to show cause re preliminary injunction (OSC) against Defendants, Samuel Lachikian and A

Nature of Proceedings: OSC TRO (DV) This is a request for a DV Restraining Order After Hearing (Order of Protection); the request for a temporary restraining order was denied; that request was heard without notice because Betty said Richard would “flip out” if she told him about her request; there is no proof of service in the file. Ruling: Off calendar.

Plaintiff has not filed proofs of service of the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) or notice of this hearing on Plaintiff's Application for Preliminary Injunction with the court. "No preliminary injunction shall be granted without notice to the opposing party." (Code Civ. Proc. § 527(a).) Plaintiff's counsel is requested to appear at the hearing with proofs of service of the summons and complaint, the TRO, notice of this hearing and its papers pertaining to the application for preliminary injunction.

Order To Show Cause Re: Preliminary Injunction And Temporary Restraining Order On Defendants Nationstar Mortgage Llc, Nbs Default Services, Llc, Does 1 To 10 Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for Friday, January 30, 2015, line 8. Order To Show Cause Re: Preliminary Injunction And Temporary Restraining Order On Defendants Nationstar Mortgage Llc, Nbs Default Services, Llc, Does 1 To 10 OFF CALENDAR; TRO is dissolved.

On February 9, 2017, this Court issued a temporary restraining order ("TRO") enjoining the then-pending foreclosure sale of the real property the subject of this action. The Court also scheduled a hearing for the preliminary injunction for February 24. In addition to this action between Lanes End and ClintonBailey, there is another action pending between the parties in the Orange County Superior Court. (The "Orange County" action.)

The request for a contempt citation is predicated upon a Temporary Restraining Order that expired on or about February 10, 2020. (ROA 136 and 158 (the initial TRO order and a later order on a motion for preliminary injunction hearing that extended the effect of the TRO for another 20 days).) Accordingly, the request lacks merit. This is the tentative ruling for an appearance hearing on Friday, October 2, 2020 at 1:30 p.m.

Petitioners filed a request for a temporary restraining order, and on February 24, 2020, this Court issued a temporary restraining order requiring Respondent to “provide Stericycle with splits of physical samples taken by DTSC criminal investigators from Stericycle’s Rancho Cordova plant on February 11, 2020, pursuant to a search warrant…” (Resp. RJN, Exh. 1.)

Nature of Proceedings: OSC TRO (DV) This is an OSC regarding Lara�s �no-notice� request for a DV-110 Temporary Restraining Order she submitted seeking orders against Alex Conrad; the Court originally denied the request, telling her the Court needed much more information and also needed to hear from Alex; the hearing was set for 10/28/14. There is no proof of service in the file. Ruling: Off calendar.

On November 28, 2018, the court dissolved the temporary restraining order issued on November 14, 2018, reissued a temporary restraining order on that date and set an Order to Show Cause Re: Preliminary Injunction for December 18, 2018. On December 18, 2018, the court denied Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction and dissolved the temporary restraining order.

Maple Knoll Homeowners Association Inc CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited CASE TYPE: Other Real Property EVENT TYPE: Motion - Other (CLM) for Temporary Restraining Order & Order to Show Cause Re Preliminary Injunction MOVING PARTY: Daniel Moscaritolo, Debra Ann Moscaritolo CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion - Other for Temporary Restraining Order & Order to Show Cause Re Preliminary Injunction, Memo of Points & Authorities in Support & Declaration

Mullen CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited CASE TYPE: Non-PI/PD/WD tort - Other EVENT TYPE: Ex Parte for Issuance of Order to Show Cause and Temporary Restraining Order and Plaintiffs Motion of Preliminary Injunction MOVING PARTY: Mission Plaza Center LLC CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Ex Parte Application - Other for Issuance of Order to Show Cause and Temporary Restraining Order, and Plaintiffs Motion of Preliminary Injunction, 09/20/2022 APPEARANCES

within the time required by paragraph (2), the court may reissue any temporary restraining order previously issued.

Notice Of Motion For Tro; Memo P/A Set for hearing on Monday, May 21, 2012, Line 20. PLAINTIFF HANSON BRIDGETT LLP, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP'S Notice Of Motion For Temporary restraining order. Hearing required. At the hearing the parties will be asked to address what they think are the prospects of an appellate decision in Coblentz being binding on this case at either the trial or appellate court level. = (302/HEK)

A temporary restraining order is granted to maintain the status quo pending a decision on a preliminary injunction.

Lionscove Fund 1, LLC, Case No. 24SMCV00772 Hearing Date February 23, 2024 Plaintiff 12518 Sunsets Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order Plaintiff Sunset Group obtained a mortgage loan from defendant Lionscove for $2,737,050, secured by property owned by plaintiff Daron Campbell. Sunset states the loan included $722,050 in construction funds, which were to be made available as construction expenses were incurred.

Balent’s Application For Issuance of Preliminary Injunction is DENIED and the temporary restraining order is DISSOLVED. Plaintiff has failed to file proof of service of the summons, complaint, TRO, and moving papers upon Defendant. (See 08/03/16 and 09/19/16 minute orders.) The matter cannot proceed without proper service upon defendant. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 527, subd. (d)(2); see also Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1150(a).) Plaintiff shall give notice.

The temporary restraining order may include any of the protective orders described in paragraph (6) of subdivision (b). (Code Civ. Proc., § 527.8) However, under section 527.8(e), plaintiffs may obtain a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) if they also file a declaration as described above, and that declaration satisfies the reasonable proof required by the court.

However, the court notes that the temporary restraining order issued on February 9, 2022 and extended by the court on February 22, 2022 remains in effect until such time as the stay is lifted and the Order to Show Cause can be heard. (Hewlett v.

The plaintiffs’ ex parte application for a temporary restraining order is granted. The proposed order is not signed. Counsel for plaintiffs shall provide a proper form of a temporary restraining order and of an order to show cause re issuance of a preliminary injunction. Analysis: Civil Code section 913 is conditioned upon the delivery of either a notice of claim or a written representation letter from the homeowner’s attorney. Plaintiffs have not provided evidence of the delivery of either.

Nature of Proceedings: OSC TRO (DV) This is a request for a DV Restraining Order After Hearing (Order of Protection); the request for a temporary restraining order was granted. The physical abuse recited in the declaration appears compelling; there is no response filed; if Esmaeil, appears I will hear what he has to say. Ruling: Given the fact there has been no response and given the seriousness of the abuse described, I expect to sign the requested order attached to the flyleaf of the file.

.: 37-2022-00034412-CU-BT-CTL CASE TITLE: MATIYA VS COMPASS DIGITAL [IMAGED] CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited CASE TYPE: Business Tort EVENT TYPE: Motion Hearing (Civil) CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Defendants' Motion to Dissolve the Temporary Restraining Order is granted.

Emerald Perspective CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited CASE TYPE: Business Tort EVENT TYPE: Ex Parte TRO stay defendant from delivery of cannabis and claims of acting on behalf of plaintiff MOVING PARTY: Freedom 1st Association Inc CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Ex Parte Application - Other Application for Order to Show Cause and Temporary Restraining Order; Memorandum in Support, 08/04/2022 APPEARANCES JAMES B.

F47 Date: 7/29/22 Case #20CHCV00385 MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER Ex parte application/Motion filed on 7/12/22. MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Jose Alberto Diaz and Jose Diaz, Sr. RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants Pauline Macareno, Erik Candelaria, Margie Candelaria and Design to Build Developments, Inc. NOTICE: ok RELIEF REQUESTED : An order granting a temporary restraining order (TRO).

COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE VS APPLICATION FOR TRO AND OSC RE CVSW2205533 BABCOCK PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Tentative Ruling: The County’s request for judicial notice is granted. The County’s application for a temporary restraining order is denied. The County’s application for an OSC is granted. Analysis: The County sues the defendant on the basis that the defendant was the record title owner of the parcel at the time the action was filed. The defendant counters that he sold the property in 2020.

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.

On January 3, 2014, plaintiff applied to the court ex parte for a temporary restraining order and order to show cause re issuance of a preliminary injunction to enjoin the trustee’s sale of the property scheduled for January 6. The court granted the TRO, with the proviso that plaintiff must post a $25,000 bond by noon on January 3, 2014, for the TRO to be effective. The court set this OSC for January 28 in this Department, with opposition and reply papers due on January 14 and 21, respectively.