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

IN THE MATTER OF ERIC ROSENBERG

Preliminary distributions require court supervision, not mere consent of the heirs, except in limited circumstances not applicable here. (Prob. Code §§ 10520, 10501(a)(4).) According to Petitioner, the estate was paid $131,945.25 by Rentzer, representing 24% of attorney fees Rentzer collected on behalf the decedent's law practice.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Probate

  • Sub Type

    Trust

FROM THE EARTH, LLC VS CITY OF COMMERCE, ET AL.

PRELIMINARY COMMENTS: The issue presented here is simple: is an alleged extortion scheme protected by the anti-SLAPP statute. The answer is equally simple: No. BACKGROUND: “This action is based upon the tortious and corrupt conduct of the defendant City of Commerce illegally conspiring with a convicted felon and disgraced former Bell city councilmember, defendant Beltran, to develop a plan in which each would profit off the issuance of marijuana dispensary licenses in the city of Commerce.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

ALPIN PATEL VS BRYAN ALLAN PAYTON, ET AL.

In re Laventhol & Horwath (1992) 1992 WL 88184 at 2 [“[B]ankruptcy court has the power, in corporate and partnership bankruptcy cases, to grant a preliminary injunction staying litigation against non-debtors when such actions have a significant impact on the Debtor.”].) Therefore, Defendant Dorman does not establish discovery is stayed as to him. 3.

  • Hearing

FRANK ORTEGA VS WHEELS FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC

The court found that the subject agreement “expressly exclude[d] claims for public injunction,” and “turn[ed] to the complaint to determine whether it assert[ed] a claim for public injunctive relief.” (20STCV04632 1/9/2020 Ruling, p. 9.) The court ultimately determined that the agreement indeed waived the plaintiff’s right to seek public injunctive relief, and pursuant to McGill, denied the motion. (Id. p. 11.) Department 26’s decision in Dixon has no impact on this Court’s ruling.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

STARA ORIEN VS MISTA L LUTZ ET AL

As a preliminary matter, there is still no evidence before the Court that the Notice of Lien or that the Notice of Entry of Sister-State Judgment were ever served on Plaintiff. (Motion Exh. 5.) There is no proof of service attached to either document, and the proof of service page of the Notice of Entry of Judgment on Sister-State Judgment is blank.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

YANG NAM KIM VS KOREA SENIOR CITIZENS MUTUAL CLUB, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

PRELIMINARY COMMENTS: Plainitff Hang Nam Kim is representing herself in pro per. The Court is aware of the problems that a pro per plaintiff has in navigating our judicial system. “[A] pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers and can only be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.”

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY VS WALKER

The application of Edison for a preliminary injunction is denied. Analysis: Before a preliminary injunction may be entered pursuant to an order to show cause, there must be proof that the OSC has been served on the defendants. Here, it does not appear that such proof has been filed. The proofs of service state that the document served on the defendants was the “proposed” temporary restraining order and order to show cause re preliminary injunction.

  • Hearing

BIEBER VS JAMES

As a preliminary matter, the Opposition papers were not timely filed and exceeded the page limit. However, as MP filed a substantive reply, counsel has represented that the tardy submission was due to a calendaring error, and no resulting prejudice is shown, the Court has elected to consider the tardy Opposition papers. On the merits, MP asserts that this action was brought by a political strategist for political purposes and lacks merit.

  • Hearing

DAVID BABAIE, ET AL. VS TRANS WEST INVESTIGATIONS, INC., A CORPORATION, ET AL.

Defendant also asserts that “Civil Code § 3369 provides that an injunction cannot be used to enforce a penalty or forfeiture in any case, nor to enforce a Penal law, except in case of nuisance.” (Id. at p. 12:1-2.)

  • Hearing

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

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

  • Hearing

NASSER SEDAGHAT VS TARZANA HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER

PRELIMINARY COMMENTS: None of Plaintiff S. David Sedaghat’s pleadings are paginated. This not only violates the California Rules of Court, Rules 2.109 and 3.1113, but makes it harder for the Court to cite to Plaintiff’s pleadings in this decision. BACKGROUND: Plaintiff Nasser Sedaghat died while a resident at Defendants Tarzana Health and Rehabilitation Center and Kamran Kamrava, M.D.’s care center. Plaintiff’s son, S.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

HWA JA PARK, ET AL. VS SAMHO TOUR, INC. , ET AL.

PRELIMINARY COMMENT: The Court is surprised to see these motions to compel on the Court’s calendar. The Court held an Informal Discovery Conference on November 9, 2020; the Court’s notes indicate that the moving party agreed to take these motions off-calendar. However, in the event that these motions remain on-calendar, the Court issues the following decision.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CITY NATIONAL BANK, A NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATION VS ALINA YALANSKA, IN HER CAPACITY AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF BARRY K. ROTHMAN, ET AL.

However, as Yalanska notes, Bank does not demonstrate that an alternative remedy, such as an injunction, writ of possession, attachment, provisional director, or lis pendens, would be inadequate, as required before a receiver is appointed. Opp. at 14. Bank does not address this issue. Bank has not established that appointment of a receiver is appropriate for Rothman, Inc. E. Conclusion The motion for appointment of a receiver is denied.

  • Hearing

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

This is not an injunction, and therefore the injunction analysis and undertaking requirement argued by Plaintiff are not applicable. The motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication is taken off calendar. The Court sets a status conference for April 15, 2021 at 8:30 a.m. Moving party to give notice. Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at [email protected] indicating intention to submit.

  • Hearing

CVS STORES WAGE AND HOUR CASES

Dept. 12 SSC JCCP 4975 CVS Stores Wage and Hour Cases Nov. 24, 2020 Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement Court’s observations and requirements: (1) Counsel should file the Consolidated Complaint with the court. (2) Modify the Release: a. The effective date of the release should be the date on which the Defendant fully funds the settlement. b.

  • Hearing

BRIAN SANDERS VS TORRANCE POLICE DEPARTMENT

Minutes from the underlying criminal cases show that a preliminary hearing was not held until September 19, 2019, after Petitioner made the CPRA request and after Respondent was required to respond. (Id. Exh. I.) Officer Lee was present for the hearing. (Ibid.) The court required the defendants to answer certain charges. (Ibid.) Defendants pleaded nolo contendere on September 21, 2020 to certain charges.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

RAZUKI INVESTMENTS LLC VS ABLE INVESTMENT SERVICES

THEREFORE, the Order to Show Cause re: Preliminary Injunction is DENIED.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

JOSE ALBERTO MORA GARCIA VS. SOUTH BEACH BAR & GRILLE INC

The court has reviewed Plaintiff Jose Alberto Mora Garcia's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. The court did not find evidence of Plaintiff's submission of the proposed settlement to the Labor & Workforce Development Agency, as required by Code. (Lab. Code 2699(l)(2).) Accordingly, the motion is CONTINUED to December 18, 2020 at 8:30 a.m. to allow time for Plaintiff's counsel to submit a brief supplemental declaration addressing this issue.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

IN RE: ESTHER BORJA IRREVOCABLE TRUST, DATED NOVEMBER 29, 2019

Borja now moves on a preliminary basis to (1) remove Trustee and appoint a licensed private fiduciary in her place or, in the alternative, and (2) enjoin Trustee from distributing, disbursing, or selling any income or principal of the Trust to any persons or entities other than Borja without prior Court approval. Borja sought ex parte relief, which was denied, but the Court set an OSC and the motion is fully briefed by the parties.

  • Hearing

GREGORY LUCAS VS CITY OF POMONA

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

  • Hearing

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

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

  • Hearing

JOANNE SOSSMAN VS ALTAMED HEALTH SERVICES CORP, A CORPORATE ENTITY FORM UNKNOWN

Discussion As a preliminary matter the court notes that Plaintiff labels the motion a motion for reconsideration of order dismissing case for failure to post first appearance fees after denial of fee waiver, and request to reinstate case nunc pro tunc. However, the relief sought is an order vacating the voiding of the complaint. “The nature of a motion is determined by the nature of the relief sought, not by the label attached to it. The law is not a mere game of words.”

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CHARONE GILMORE VS. RALPH LAUREN

The parties requested that the Court vacate the Case Management Conference set for November 23 and set a hearing date on a motion for preliminary approval of settlement on January 22, 2021. Accordingly, the Case Management Conference scheduled for November 23 is VACATED. The Court sets the hearing on the parties' motion for preliminary approval of settlement for January 22, 2021 at 8:20. Plaintiff to give notice.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. VS. JOSE LUIS TORRES, ET AL

Objection Nos. 1 & 2 – As a preliminary matter, the first and second objections present arguments that are identical to the arguments proffered in Leticia's opposition briefing to the summary judgment motion filed on March 10, 2020. Thus, the Court need not substantively analyze the two objections and will further overrule Objection No. 1 and No. 2.

  • Hearing

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 load this page.