“[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.)
Aug 13, 2021
Kern County, CA
Feb 26, 2021
Santa Clara County, CA
Feb 25, 2021
Santa Clara County, CA
Feb 17, 2021
Stanislaus County, CA
Feb 16, 2021
San Francisco County, CA
Feb 10, 2021
Merced County, CA
Feb 10, 2021
Merced County, CA
Feb 10, 2021
Stanislaus County, CA
Feb 10, 2021
Merced County, CA
Feb 10, 2021
Merced County, CA
Feb 10, 2021
Merced County, CA
Feb 10, 2021
Merced County, CA
Feb 10, 2021
Merced County, CA
Feb 10, 2021
Merced County, CA
Feb 10, 2021
Merced County, CA
Feb 10, 2021
Merced County, CA
Feb 10, 2021
Merced County, CA
Feb 10, 2021
Merced County, CA
Feb 10, 2021
Merced County, CA
Feb 10, 2021
Merced County, CA
Feb 10, 2021
Merced County, CA
Feb 10, 2021
Merced County, CA
Feb 10, 2021
Merced County, CA
Feb 10, 2021
Merced County, CA
Feb 10, 2021
Merced County, CA
Please wait a moment while we load this page.