Your recipients will receive an email with this envelope shortly and will be able to access it on trellis. You can always see your envelopes by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
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.)
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.)
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.)
“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.)
“In case a temporary restraining order is granted without notice in the contingency specified in subdivision (c): “(1) The matter shall be made returnable on an order requiring cause to be shown why a preliminary injunction should not be granted, on the earliest day that the business of the court will admit of, but not later than 15 days or, if good cause appears to the court, 22 days from the date the temporary restraining order is issued. “(2) The party who obtained the temporary restraining order shall,
JANET BLACKWELL ET AL VS BRETT LOVETT ET AL
1438333
Oct 25, 2013
Santa Barbara County, CA
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.
TOLMASOFF V. SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, LLC
17CECG00429
Mar 20, 2017
Fresno County, CA
Business
Intellectual Property
“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.
LEON W. WATTS III VS U.S. BANK N.A., ET AL.,
SC124742
Feb 23, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
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.)
WILLIAM XIAOYU GUO, ET AL. VS DAWN M PETSCHAUER
23STCV10218
Nov 02, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
QUEZON VS TIKAL/KATN LIVING TR
MSC17-02247
Dec 06, 2017
Contra Costa County, CA
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
INDERJIT SINGH NIJJAR ET AL. VS MANRAJ BAINS ET AL.
STK-CV-URP-2018-0011222
Nov 06, 2018
San Joaquin County, CA
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.
WIND VS. SHANE
MSC17-01709
Sep 22, 2017
Contra Costa County, CA
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).
CONNIE CHEIN, M.D. VS PROVIDENCE SAINT JOHN'S HEALTH CENTER, A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT RELIGIOUS CORPORATION, ET AL.
21SMCV01884
Dec 03, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
MARSHA ZILLES VS NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE ET AL
1486572
Jan 28, 2015
Santa Barbara County, CA
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.
BEHNAM DANIEL RAFALIAN VS SHAHRAM ELYASZADEH, ET AL.
21SMCP00018
Dec 03, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
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).)
SINGH, ET AL. V. SAHOTA, ET AL.
19CECG00805
May 31, 2019
Fresno County, CA
Real Property
other
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
FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY VS SAMUEL LACHIKIAN, ET AL.
21STCV06565
Mar 19, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
To find the court's website go to: www.courts.ca,gow/find-my-court.him. @) Temporary Restraining Order a.
FL1201435
Mar 17, 2023
Shannon M Gerhart
Marin County, CA
To find the court's website go to: www.courts.ca,gow/find-my-court.him. @) Temporary Restraining Order a.
FL1201435
Mar 16, 2023
Shannon M Gerhart
Marin County, CA
To find the court's website go to: www.courts.ca,gow/find-my-court.him. @) Temporary Restraining Order a.
FL1201435
Mar 19, 2023
Shannon M Gerhart
Marin County, CA
To find the court's website go to: www.courts.ca,gow/find-my-court.him. @) Temporary Restraining Order a.
FL1201435
Mar 18, 2023
Shannon M Gerhart
Marin County, CA
To find the court's website go to: www.courts.ca,gow/find-my-court.him. @) Temporary Restraining Order a.
FL1201435
Mar 20, 2023
Shannon M Gerhart
Marin County, CA
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.”
WIDLY V. TUCKER
30-2020-01133955
Jun 18, 2020
Orange County, CA
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.
DOMINO VS. NATIONSTAR
MSC16-01836
Nov 07, 2016
Ed Weil
Contra Costa County, CA
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.
IN RE THE ESTATE OF BARBARA ANN WEISKOTTEN, DECEASED
FPR049101
Nov 01, 2018
Solano County, CA
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.
PABLO LOPEZ, JR. VS HOMEBRIDGE FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC
22STCV10319
Apr 19, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
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)
ANDRE CHANDRA ET AL VS. SHAWN COLEMAN ET AL
CGC08473640
Jan 22, 2010
San Francisco County, CA
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.
FL1201435
Mar 21, 2023
Shannon M Gerhart
Marin County, CA
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.”
WIDLY V. TUCKER
30-2020-01133955
Jul 09, 2020
Orange County, CA
“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).)
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ET AL VS 15319 AVALON
BC719050
May 16, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Business
Intellectual Property
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)
PILADE FLAVIO CORSI VS. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., A NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
CGC14541517
Oct 09, 2014
San Francisco County, CA
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.
COMMUNITY WEST BANK NA VS EDUARDO SANCHEZ ET AL
1343632
Oct 26, 2011
Santa Barbara County, CA
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.
ORCHARD ESTATE HOMES, INC., A CALIFORNIA NON-PROFIT CORPORATION VS SANAMYAN
CVPS2202426
Jul 11, 2022
Riverside County, CA
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.
ORCHARD ESTATE HOMES, INC., A CALIFORNIA NON-PROFIT CORPORATION VS SANAMYAN
CVPS2202426
Jul 09, 2022
Riverside County, CA
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.
ORCHARD ESTATE HOMES, INC., A CALIFORNIA NON-PROFIT CORPORATION VS SANAMYAN
CVPS2202426
Jul 10, 2022
Riverside County, CA
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.
JOHNSON V. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK
SCV-264046
Sep 05, 2019
Sonoma County, CA
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.
DENNIS E. VICE VS SETERUS INC
KC069849
Feb 02, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
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.”)
CALIFORNIA MILK PRODUCERS ADVISORY BOARD, AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE VS JAMES W. JONES, AKA JIM JONES
STK-CV-UF-2018-0011981
Oct 17, 2018
San Joaquin County, CA
The temporary restraining order is dissolved.
CLARA GARCIA VS OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC
KC069080
Mar 14, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
PAUL SIERRA ET AL VS WELLS FARGO BANK NA
1383089
Oct 26, 2011
Santa Barbara County, CA
The request for a preliminary injunction is therefore denied, and the temporary restraining order is dissolved.
VIRGINIA MURGUIA VS JACQUELYN HERNANDEZ, ET AL.
18PSCV00016
Dec 18, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Real Property
Quiet Title
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
TRISHA KENNEY VS DARREN KENNEY
16FL01640
Jul 19, 2016
Santa Barbara County, CA
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.
NANCY MGGINNIS VS. SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING INC. ET AL
CGC19578344
Apr 13, 2021
San Francisco County, CA
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.
NEHEMIAH COMMUNITY VS. LOVE-A-CHILD MISSIONS, INC.
MSC16-01706
Oct 26, 2016
Contra Costa County, CA
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.
VIRGINIA MURGUIA VS JACQUELYN HERNANDEZ, ET AL.
18PSCV00016
Feb 15, 2019
Gloria White-Brown
Los Angeles County, CA
Real Property
Quiet Title
* 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.
PERFORMANCE CONTRACTING VS. LUIS DE LEON, JR.
MSC18-02005
Dec 05, 2018
Contra Costa County, CA
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.)
RAY T. OYAKAWA, M.D., VS. RICHARD GILLETT, M.D., ET AL.,
C495740
Dec 17, 2018
Wendy Chang or Jon R. Takasugi
Los Angeles County, CA
Other
Intellectual Property
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
2022-00562309
Jan 11, 2022
Ventura County, CA
Tro And Other Relief GRANT-TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER. (302/EHG/JT)
COMERICA BANK, A MICHIGAN BANKING CORPORATION AND VS. COMMERCIAL CAPITAL BANCORP, INC A CORPORATION ET AL
CGC05443546
Aug 01, 2005
San Francisco County, CA
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).)
(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)
B711889
Jul 25, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
CARMEN MADRIGAL VS GERARDO FIGUEROA
1416714
May 14, 2013
Santa Barbara County, CA
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
NANCY REICHEL VS. SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING LLC
37-2016-00040237-CU-OR-CTL
Dec 20, 2016
San Diego County, CA
Real Property
other
“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.
SLW HOLDINGS, LLC VS TYRONE FREEMAN, ET AL.
21STCV20050
Jun 17, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Business
Intellectual Property
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.”
JULIA FLINT VS. FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
EC068836
Jul 20, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Real Property
Foreclosure
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.
SINGH V. SANGHA
CVCV15-1143
Jun 30, 2016
Yolo County, CA
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.
SAFEWAY V. JOHN DOES
15CV0249
Sep 03, 2015
San Luis Obispo County, CA
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.
KAYLIN FOX VS PHILLIP EVANGELATOS
1416684
May 14, 2013
Santa Barbara County, CA
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
MARTIN VS DEL TORO LENDING SERVICING INC
37-2023-00041797-CU-OR-CTL
Oct 13, 2023
San Diego County, CA
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.
CASILIO VS. VALENTINE
MSC16-01371
Mar 24, 2021
Contra Costa County, CA
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.
KERRIE KILPATRICK-WEINBERG VS WILLIAM WEINBERG
1470080
Jan 13, 2015
Santa Barbara County, CA
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.
AMEE LEONG, ET AL. V. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON, MONTECITO WATER DISTRICT, ET AL.
18CV00371
Feb 20, 2018
Santa Barbara County, CA
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)
CINDY YU ET AL VS. SHAWN SHAO DAN YU ET AL
CGC13533308
Oct 08, 2013
San Francisco County, CA
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.
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE VS VILLA
CVRI2102778
Sep 02, 2021
day s
Riverside County, CA
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.
PARKER V. ALAI
30-2015-00767937-CU-OE-CJC
May 14, 2019
Orange County, CA
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)
SAN FRANCISCO JUDO INSTITUTE VS. MICHAEL GRANT ET AL
CGC13535486
Dec 23, 2013
San Francisco County, CA
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.
VIRGINIA MURGUIA VS JACQUELYN HERNANDEZ, ET AL.
18PSCV00016
Mar 18, 2019
Gloria White-Brown
Los Angeles County, CA
Real Property
Quiet Title
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.
ANNE M SCONBERG VS. JASON WONG
CGC13528073
Nov 22, 2013
San Francisco County, CA
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.”
LARRY CURLEE V. JOHN E. ODUM
19CV-0523
Nov 20, 2019
San Luis Obispo County, CA
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.
KRISTA LISHMAN AND ALFREDO GONZALEZ
1370351
Nov 09, 2010
Santa Barbara County, CA
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)
FRANCES TORRES VS. BENITO SOLIS ET AL
CGC08479294
Sep 16, 2008
San Francisco County, CA
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.
HUGHES VS FCI LENDER SERVICES, INC.
30-2021-01183906
Jul 01, 2021
Orange County, CA
(See CCP 1013(e)) The Aug. 18, 2016 Temporary Restraining Order is hereby dissolved.
BEVIER VS. FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION
37-2016-00027862-CU-BC-NC
Nov 08, 2016
San Diego County, CA
Contract
Breach
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
2019-00528075
Dec 16, 2022
Ventura County, CA
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)
CINDY YU ET AL VS. SHAWN SHAO DAN YU ET AL
CGC13533308
Sep 19, 2013
San Francisco County, CA
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)
PHILLIP HARRIS VS. CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC. ET AL
CGC15544780
Jun 19, 2015
San Francisco County, CA
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.
KAYLIN FOX VS PHILLIP EVANGELATOS
1416684
May 28, 2013
Santa Barbara County, CA
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.
MARISOL BARTOLO V. EDUARDO VERGARA JUAREZ
19FL01096
Oct 29, 2019
Santa Barbara County, CA
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.
DAROUIAN VS. AHGHARI
37-2017-00012121-CU-BC-NC
Aug 10, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Contract
Breach
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
FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY VS SAMUEL LACHIKIAN, ET AL.
21STCV06565
Apr 09, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
MARCELO LECITONA ET AL VS. NATION MORTGAGE LLC ET AL
CGC15543508
Jan 30, 2015
San Francisco County, CA
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.
FPA COLLWOOD LLC VS COLLINS
37-2018-00045755-CU-OR-CTL
Mar 07, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Real Property
other
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.)
GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT OF RANCHO CORDOVA LLC VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL
34-2020-80003331-CU-WM-GDS
Jan 15, 2021
Sacramento County, CA
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.
BETTY POWERS VS RICHARD MAAS
1417600
Jul 09, 2013
Santa Barbara County, CA
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.
VIRGINIA MURGUIA VS JACQUELYN HERNANDEZ, ET AL.
18PSCV00016
Feb 27, 2019
Gloria White-Brown
Los Angeles County, CA
Real Property
Quiet Title
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.)
LANES END LLC VS CLINTONBAILEY APC
37-2017-00004474-CU-OR-CTL
Feb 23, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Real Property
other
within the time required by paragraph (2), the court may reissue any temporary restraining order previously issued.
VIRGINIA MURGUIA VS JACQUELYN HERNANDEZ, ET AL.
18PSCV00016
Nov 28, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Real Property
Quiet Title
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.
ROSEN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. VS BOOKSTEIN
37-2018-00045884-CU-OR-NC
Oct 01, 2020
San Diego County, CA
Real Property
other
A temporary restraining order is granted to maintain the status quo pending a decision on a preliminary injunction.
KYLE ORLEMANN, ET AL. VS KEVIN CHIASSON, AS TRUSTEE OF THE MICHAEL D. STONE TRUST
20TRCV00305
May 01, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
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.
12518 SUNSET GROUP LLC, ET AL. VS LIONSCOVE FUND 1, LLC
24SMCV00772
Feb 23, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
LARA CONRAD AND ALEX CONRAD
1438737
Oct 28, 2014
Santa Barbara County, CA
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
2021-00558295
Nov 24, 2021
Ventura County, CA
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
2022-00569621
Sep 22, 2022
Ventura County, CA
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.
LOCK AND KEY PRODUCTIONS INC ET AL VS DUANE SPANN JR
BC711800
Jul 30, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
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)
HANSON BRIDGETT LLP, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ET AL
CGC11513357
May 21, 2012
San Francisco County, CA
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.
Balent v. Butcher
Oct 01, 2016
Orange County, CA
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.
LUCKY LEE GOLD VS. MONALISA BERBEY / LEAD CASE
16CECG02260
Mar 10, 2022
Fresno County, CA
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).
JOSE ALBERTO DIAZ, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS PAULINE MACARENO, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.
20CHCV00385
Jul 29, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
SCARLETT VS LENNAR HOMES OF CALIFORNIA INC
RIC1802887
Aug 10, 2018
Riverside County, CA
.: 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.
MATIYA VS COMPASS DIGITAL
37-2022-00034412-CU-BT-CTL
Feb 15, 2024
San Diego County, CA
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.
2022-00568362
Aug 05, 2022
Ventura County, CA
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.
MARIA LEON VS ESMAEIL HEDAYATPOOR
1417560
Jul 09, 2013
Santa Barbara County, CA
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.
STEINER V. CEDILLO
PC-20200125
Aug 21, 2020
El Dorado County, CA
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.
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE VS BABCOCK
CVSW2205533
Sep 14, 2022
Riverside County, CA
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.
STEINER V. CEDILLO
PC-20200125
Sep 25, 2020
El Dorado County, CA
In case a temporary restraining order is granted without notice& 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 reissued order shall be made returnable as provided by paragraph (1), with the time for hearing measured from the date of reissuance. No fee shall be charged for reissuing the order. (CCP §527(d)(5).)
ROBERT W HARROLD, ET AL. VS ENZO ENTERPRISES, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
23NWCV01094
Apr 26, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.