What is a Motion to Dissolve Preliminary Injunction?

“[A] preliminary injunction is an order that is sought by a plaintiff prior to a full adjudication of the merits of its claim.” (White v. Davis (2003) 30 Cal.4th 528, 554.) It requires a person to refrain from a particular act; it may be granted by the court in which the action is brought, or by a judge thereof; and when granted by a judge, it may be enforced as an order of the court. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 525; Comfort v. Comfort, (1941) 17 Cal.2d 736, 741.)

“[A]n order granting or denying a preliminary injunction does not amount to an adjudication of the ultimate rights in controversy. Its purpose is to preserve the status quo until the merits of the action can be determined.” (Socialist Workers etc. Committee v. Brown (1975) 53 Cal.App.3d 879, 890-91.) The status quo has been defined to mean the last actual peaceable, uncontested status which preceded the pending controversy. (14859 Moorpark Homeowner’s Assn. v. VRT Corp. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1396. 1402.)

Legal Standard

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.)

Burden of Proof

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.)

Ultimately, “granting, denying, dissolving, or refusing to dissolve a permanent or preliminary injunction rests in the sound discretion of the trial court upon a consideration of all the particular circumstances of each individual case.” (Prof'l Engineers v. Dep't of Transp. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 543, 562.) Although the court has broad discretion, it “must exercise its discretion ‘in favor of the party most likely to be injured.’” (Robbins v. Super. Ct. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 199, 205.) The ultimate goal is to minimize the harm which an erroneous interim decision may cause. (American Credit Indemnity Co. v. Sacks (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 622, 637.)

Useful Rulings on Motion to Dissolve Preliminary Injunction

Recent Rulings on Motion to Dissolve Preliminary Injunction

1-25 of 10000 results

PRICE VS THE CITY OF ANAHEIM

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction Provided that the City will stipulate to a preliminary injunction with respect to the provisions of Ordinance No. 6374 relating to immediate warrantless access to the short-term rental (STR) units, the Court DENIES the application for a preliminary injunction in all other respects, WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2030

ANGELA WATSON VS GILBERT A. CABOT

DISCUSSION As a preliminary matter, Defendants’ request for judicial notice of the December 5, 2019, Minute Order and the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) is GRANTED. DEMURRER 1st Cause of Action: Negligent Misrepresentation Statute of Limitations Defendants contend that the 1st cause of action is time-barred because Plaintiff failed to bring the claim within three years of the statute beginning to run.

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

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

MAXEY PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need appearances to report status Notes: 1. Deborah Maxey’s Response filed 2-21-20. 2. 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 NOTE...

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Judge

    Fenstermacher

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

MATTER OF HUMAN POTENTIAL FOUNDATION

Code, §17200)/ Ex Parte Relief (UPDATED 9/18/2020) From the Court’s preliminary review of the petition and related pleadings and documents filed in this matter, it appears that the Court does not, and would not have jurisdiction in this case, even to the extent to entertain, let alone grant the relief being sought by petitioner at the hearing set for Tuesday, September 22, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

REBECCA CASTILLO VS TASTEA HOLDINGS LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

A preliminary and permanent injunction requiring Defendant to take the steps necessary to make gotastea.com readily accessible to and usable by blind and visually-impaired individuals but Plaintiff hereby expressly limits the injunctive relief to require that Defendant expend no more than $50,000 thereon . . .” (Id., 17:22-27, ¶¶2 and 3.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

THOMAS NORIEGA V. DAVID SPURR

The Court intends to grant preliminary approval of the settlement, however, as set forth above, no proposed order was lodged with the Court as required.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

NATIONWIDE AGRIBUSINESS INSURANCE CO. V. GONZALES

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that the proposed FAC was independently filed in this matter on August 3, 2020, two days prior to the motion being filed. The acceptance of the FAC for filing after Defendants’ answer was on file without prior leave of Court was mistaken. (Code Civ. Proc., § 472(a).) The Court, on its own motion, strikes the FAC as filed on August 3, 2020. Next, the Court considers whether leave should be granted to file the FAC.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

CHAN VS. TRANQUILITY, INC.

Preliminary Matters. Plaintiff’s attorney (Ms. Yee) filed a supplemental declaration in opposition to the demurrer on September 8, 2020. Defendant’s objections to that supplemental declaration were filed on September 16, 2020. The objections are overruled. However, the Court notes that it has not treated the legal arguments within Ms. Yee’s declaration as evidence.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

CITY OF COSTA MESA V. NATIONAL THERAPEUTIC SERVICES, INC.

The Court has no difficulty concluding that RAW’s motion for preliminary injunction (which, alternatively, sought a stay) was objectively completely without merit. There can be no preliminary injunction where there is no cause of action. “Injunctive relief is a remedy, not a cause of action. [Citations.] A cause of action must exist before a court may grant a request for injunctive relief.” (Allen v. City of Sacramento (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 41, 65, 183 Cal.Rptr.3d 654; accord, City of South Pasadena v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

CHUNG & ASSOCIATES LLC ET AL VS XAVIER RUFFIN ET AL

As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff requests the court to exclude the declarations because the court struck Defendants’ answer and therefore they are irrelevant. The court rejects this request. Plaintiff relies on authorities relevant for the production of evidence at trial, not a summary judgment motion. Additionally, Plaintiff fails to specifically identify what specific evidence or deposition testimony that were withheld are now being presented in opposition.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

RENEE THURMAN VS E & G PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY ET AL

As a preliminary matter, the court agrees with defendants that plaintiff’s termination is the only action by defendants that qualifies as an “adverse employment action” in this case. (See Homes v. Petrovich Development Co., LLC (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1047, 1063 [an “adverse employment action” requires a substantial adverse change in the terms and conditions of the plaintiff’s employment].)

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

HARVEY KREITENBERG, ET AL. VS MICHAEL ROSENBERG, ET AL.

Synogogue, Ministerios Cristianos Guerreros De Jehova for damages, a preliminary and permanent injunction, and other relief arising from (1) rescission of lease; (2) rescission of deed; (3) money had and received; (4) conversion; (5) breach of fiduciary duty/self-dealing; and (6) unjust enrichment.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

TRUE HARMONY INC ET AL VS ROSARIO PERRY ET AL

The SAC asserts causes of action for: Independent Equitable Action to Set Aside Void Orders and Judgment(s) of this Court; Equitable Relief to Enforce the Quiet Title Statute; Cancellation of Instruments; Equitable Relief and Damages for Violations of Charitable Trust and Corporation Laws; Restitution and Injunction against Unfair, Fraudulent and Unlawful Practices; Equitable Relief and Money Damages for Transaction Voidable under Civil Code § 3439.01 et seq.; Damages for Retaliation against the Termination

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

DON J. REYNOLDS, ET AL. VS JAMES V. BACON

ANALYSIS As a preliminary matter, the Court notes Defendant submitted new evidence in his reply papers, namely, request for judicial notice of Defendant’s Notice of Ruling filed on June 17, 2020 and Declaration of James Bacon in Reply to Plaintiffs’ Opposition (as well as attached exhibits). The Court declines to consider this new evidence as new evidence is generally not permitted in reply papers. (See e.g., Jay v. Mahaffey (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1537–1538.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JOHN BRECKENRIDGE, ET AL. VS PARK WELLINGTON OWNERS' ASSOCIATION

Defendant contends that Defendant is the undisputed prevailing party of this cause of action because judgment was entered in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiffs on the first cause of action and Defendant also prevailed in the preliminary injunction proceedings. The Court finds that Defendant is the prevailing party as to the first cause of action for breach of contract, as Defendant’s demurrer to that cause of action was sustained without leave to amend.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

CESAR ROMERO ET AL VS BROCCA CUSTOM FINISHING CARPENTRY INC

Preliminary Issue One of the arguments raised in Plaintiffs’ motion is that Defendants violated the Court’s December 4, 2019 order by not providing joint jury instructions, exhibit lists, and witness lists. Based on the review of the electronic court file, there is no order dated December 4, 2019 with respect to jury instructions, exhibit lists, or witness lists.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

HELEN CRUCHFIELD CHRISTONI VS PRETTYPARTY BEAUTY, LLC., ET AL.

Whether Movant Defendants can pursue “further responses” As a preliminary matter, the Court must rule on whether, as Plaintiff argues, Movant Defendants can seek further responses to (1) Laura SROG Nos. 8 and 10 and Steven SROG Nos. 29 and 31 for a failure to meet and confer and (2) all interrogatories because Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300 does not authorize these motions. 1.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

PHILLIP BAIZ VS. CITY OF SACRAMENTO

. ^ It was originally filed as a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, and Baiz immediately filed a motion for a preliminary injunction prohibiting the City from taking any action to collect the penalty pending final resolution ofthe case.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

PHILLIP BAIZ VS. CITY OF SACRAMENTO

., ¶ 34.) 1 As noted, an explanation may have to wait until the hearing on the merits. 2 It was originally filed as a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, and Baiz immediately filed a motion for a preliminary injunction prohibiting the City from taking any action to collect the penalty pending final resolution of the case.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

CRUZ VS. LAS MONTANAS

HEARING ON MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT FILED BY FRANCISCA CRUZ * TENTATIVE RULING: * The motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement is granted. Counsel are requested to meet and confer as to an appropriate date for calendaring the final approval hearing.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

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

On the same date, the Court also granted Defendant’s motion to seal: (1) portions of Defendant’s opposition to Plaintiffs’ ex parte application for a TRO and order to show cause re preliminary injunction; and (2) portions of Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. The Court issued a TRO on June 26, 2020 and scheduled an order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not be issued for September 24, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

KYRA GROVES ET AL VS MAPLEBEAR INC

Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. On August 28, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. On December 17, 2019, Plaintiffs—on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated class members—filed a motion for an order for final approval of class action settlement and ordering that notice be issued to the settlement class.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

BALBOA CAPITAL CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS SAMVEL GUKASYAN

This preliminary showing reveals that it is likely that the sale of the dwelling would produce a bid sufficient to satisfy the monetary judgment. (It also appears that the sale of the dwelling would produce sufficient funds to satisfy the junior liens of American Express and Wells Fargo in the amounts of $56,940.90 and $8,875.63, respectively.) For the purposes of setting this OSC, the Court finds Mr. Iezza’s declaration to be sufficient to comply with CCP §704.760.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

VELEZ VS. ENCORE INTERIORS, INC.

The tentative ruling is to continue the hearing on plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement to November 13, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. Counsel must file supplemental papers addressing the court’s concerns (not fully revised papers that would have to be re-read) at least 16 days before the next hearing date. Counsel must provide a red-lined version of the revised class notice.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

SQI DIAGNOSTICS SYSTEMS, INC. V. PREDICTIVE HEALTH DIAGNOSTICS, INC.

“Attachment is a prejudgment remedy which requires a court to make a preliminary determination of the merits of a dispute.” (Lorber Industries v. Turbulence, Inc. (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 532, 535.) “‘[A]ttachment procedures are solely creatures of statute and ... such statutes must be strictly construed.’” (Bank of America v. Salinas Nissan, Inc. (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 260, 270 [citing Arcata Publications Group v. Beverly Hills Publishing Co. (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 276, 279].)

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 400     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.