“[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.)
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.)
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.)
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.
Sep 29, 2030
Orange County, CA
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.
Oct 20, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
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...
Sep 24, 2020
Fenstermacher
Contra Costa County, CA
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.
Sep 22, 2020
Santa Barbara County, CA
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.)
Sep 22, 2020
Employment
Discrimination/Harass
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Sep 22, 2020
San Luis Obispo County, CA
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.
Sep 22, 2020
San Luis Obispo County, CA
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.
Sep 21, 2020
Burch
Contra Costa County, CA
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.
Sep 21, 2020
Orange County, CA
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.
Sep 21, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
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].)
Sep 21, 2020
Employment
Other Employment
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Sep 21, 2020
Real Property
other
Los Angeles County, CA
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
Sep 21, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
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.)
Sep 21, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Sep 21, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Sep 21, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Sep 21, 2020
Employment
Other Employment
Los Angeles County, CA
. ^ 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.
Sep 18, 2020
Sacramento County, CA
., ¶ 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.
Sep 18, 2020
Sacramento County, CA
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.
Sep 18, 2020
Contra Costa County, CA
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.
Sep 18, 2020
Business
Intellectual Property
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Sep 18, 2020
Employment
Other Employment
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Sep 18, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Sep 18, 2020
Orange County, CA
“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].)
Sep 18, 2020
Orange County, CA
Please wait a moment while we gather your results.
