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

CITRUS OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLGY VS CITRUS VALLEY HEALTH

Unless there is a showing that the challenged action is being continued or repeated, an injunction should be denied.” (Gafcon, Inc. v. Ponsor & Associates (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1388, 1403, fn. 6 [citations omitted].) “Injunctive relief will be denied if, at the time of the order of judgment, there is no reasonable probability that the past acts complained of will recur.” (California Service Station etc. Assn. v. Union Oil Co. (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 44, 57.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS CHARLES PETERS

Request for Judicial Notice Plaintiffs request judicial notice of the Court’s Tentative Ruling on the Application for a Preliminary Injunction and three provisions of the Beverly Hills Municipal Code. Plaintiffs’ request is GRANTED, pursuant to Evidence Code section 452, subdivisions (b) and (d). Analysis A motion for judgment on the pleadings has the same function as a general demurrer but is made after the time for demurrer has expired. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (f).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2020

CITY OF POMONA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ET AL. VS HIGH SUPPLY, A BUSINESS ORGANIZATION, FORM UNKNOWN, ET AL.

Code §§ 3479, 3480, 3491, 3494) Drug Abatement Act (Health & Safety Code § 11570, et seq,) Nuisance Per Se On March 11, 2020, the court granted Plaintiffs’ “Ex Parte Application for an Order to Show Cause Re Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order;” at that time, an Order to Show Cause Re: Preliminary Injunction was scheduled for March 30, 2020 (subsequently continued to July 30, 2020). On April 1, 2020, 985 West Holt’s and High Supply’s defaults were entered.

  • Hearing

    Jul 20, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

ROGER PERRY VS SCOTT WILLIAM POWERS ET AL

These actions included forging Perry’s signature on documents Powers sent to the California Department of Insurance seeking to dissolve Perry’s business and cancel Perry’s insurance licenses (Complaint, ¶¶ 8-13), sending fake emails defaming Perry (Complaint, ¶¶ 14-21, 38), and creating a fraudulent website imitating Perry’s actual website (Complaint, ¶¶ 19-20). These actions are alleged to have occurred between September and November 2017. (Complaint, ¶¶ 8-18.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

KATHY HOLLIE VS EMILIE VICTORIA WILLIAMS ET AL

In particular, “preliminary statements” and “general objections” are almost always without merit. The motions to compel responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and RPDs is granted. Defendant is ordered to serve responses, without objections (unless and until relief from waiver is obtained, within 30 days. The Court declines to deem the RFAs admitted, as such relief is unduly harsh under the circumstances.

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2020

ESTATE OF JOHN W CONVERSE

Nature of Proceedings: Status of Administration; Allow Partial Payment of Statutory Compensation; Preliminary Distribution; Extension of Time to Administer Estate

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2020

PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR RE: FIRST AND FNL ACCT & RPT, FOR CMPSTN, FNL DIST FILED ON 06/02/20 BY PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR

If $10,000 reserve is needed, Ct will consider approving a preliminary distribution and approve 75% of fees requested. 7. Proposed order DANIELLE WILLIAMS SMITH STEPHEN SHARON LEE WILLIAMS Need appearances to report status. Court intends to set this matter for trial CHERYL COPELAND DIANA BUNDRUM MICHAEL CRAMER DOUGLAS ETCHIESON GARY CLEVENGER JACK CLEVENGER JOSEPH ETCHIESON MARIE B ETCHIESON TIMOTHY ETCHIESON TIMOTHY ETHIESON Need appearances GREGG CHORBAJIAN J.

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

PETITION OF PRABAHAR ARUL PANDIARAJ JOSEPH

If $10,000 reserve is needed, Ct will consider approving a preliminary distribution and approve 75% of fees requested. 7. Proposed order DANIELLE WILLIAMS SMITH STEPHEN SHARON LEE WILLIAMS Need appearances to report status.

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

IN THE MATTER OF TIMOTHY WILLIAMS

Preliminary Issues a.

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2020

CRYSTAL CULT LLC VS TINA TRUONG

PRELIMINARY COMMENTS: The Court is denying the motion to compel for the reasons stated below. However, the Court wishes to advise counsel, prior to filing any further motions to compel, to read, Department 34’s Trial Orders, in particular, part VII, subpart (B) which states: “If there are numerous or particularly complicated motions to compel further discovery, the Court will order counsel to attend an Informal Discovery Conference prior to ruling on the motion(s).

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

IN THE MATTER OF NANCY LEE DOWALIBY

Petition for Preliminary Distribution 2. Status Report re: Authority to Sell Decedent's Former Residence etc. 3. Petition to Confirm Sale of Real Property *************** The Court intends to grant the petition for preliminary distribution. When is a petition for final distribution expected to be filed? Do we need to keep items 2&3 above on calendar? ____________________ The court discourages in-person appearances in Department J6 during the COVID-19 pandemic period.

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

IN RE THE JOSEFA SEMENCHUK TRUST

Review Hearing re Preliminary Injunction ********************** On 10/17/19, the Court ordered Respondent Jose Cuevas to file an amended statutory accounting by 10/31/19. Due to his failure to file the account, the Court set an OSC re Contempt for this date. The pending matters were also continued to this date. As of 7/6/20, the amended accounting has not been filed. Discuss. Respondent's personal appearance at the hearing is required. What is the post-mediation status?

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

  • Type

    Probate

  • Sub Type

    Trust

ARC VINEYARD V. SANDER TRUST

Nature of Proceedings: Motion: Summary Judgment or SAI and Motion: for Preliminary Injunction Judicial Notice The court grants both parties’ requests for judicial notice. Objections to Evidence Defendants object to many of the undisputed facts on the basis that they are irrelevant. In granting or denying a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication, the court need rule only on those objections to evidence that it deems material to its disposition of the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd.

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

ARC VINEYARD V. SANDER TRUST

Nature of Proceedings: Motion: Summary Judgment or SAI and Motion: for Preliminary Injunction Judicial Notice The court grants both parties’ requests for judicial notice. Objections to Evidence Defendants object to many of the undisputed facts on the basis that they are irrelevant. In granting or denying a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication, the court need rule only on those objections to evidence that it deems material to its disposition of the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd.

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

LEWIS VS. LH CONCORD PROPERTY

The case involved a labor dispute with a union in which an injunction was issued enjoining picketing by a union based on the potential for violence in which the plaintiff sought damages for injury to its business as a result of the picketing.

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD LOS ANGELES

Upon failure of a person to comply with the cleanup or abatement order, the Attorney General, at the request of the board, shall petition the superior court for that county for the issuance of an injunction requiring the person to comply with the order. In the suit, the court shall have jurisdiction to grant a prohibitory or mandatory injunction, either preliminary or permanent, as the facts may warrant. Wat. Code, § 13304 Challenges to the CAO begin under Water Code section 13330.

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

LORI ANN MANBY VS CITY OF REDONDO BEACH ET AL

If that preliminary analysis reveals a¿trivial¿defect, the court considers evidence of any additional factors such as the weather, lighting and visibility conditions at the time of the accident, the existence of debris or obstructions, and plaintiff’s knowledge of the area. If these additional factors do not indicate the defect was sufficiently dangerous to a reasonably careful person, the court should deem the defect trivial as a matter of law. . . .”¿¿(Stathoulis¿v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

LUCKY'S TWO-WAY RADIOS, INC. ET AL VS FRANK J. CANNATA

Permanent Injunction On March 29, 2019, the court granted Cannata’s motion for leave to file a cross-complaint. Cannata filed the first amended cross-complaint against Plaintiffs Lucky’s Two-Way Radios, Inc. and Buddy Corporation on April 10, 2019. Cannata filed a second amended cross-complaint (“SAXC”) on August 2, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

4762 WHITE OAK PL., LLC VS ARRON AFFLALO, ET AL.

CASE NO: 20VECV00731 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Dept. U 8:30 a.m. July 15, 2020 I.

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

NAREK DAVTIAN VS RUBIK DAVTIAN ET AL

Defendants allege it is irrelevant and not in conformity with the laws of this state because Rubik had a legal right to dissolve the corporation as a 50% shareholder and had a legal right to evict the corporation, with or without cause.

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

CATHERINE M PACAS VS MANINDER KAUR

PRELIMINARY COMMENTS: This write-up cites to the Interrogatory Motion and Lee Declaration, unless indicated otherwise, as all three motions are substantially the same. The Court recognizes that, to the pro per litigant, “interrogatories, requests for admissions, law and motion proceedings, and the like” are “baffling devices.” (Bruno v. Superior Court (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 1359, 1363, quoting Burley v. Stein (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 752, 755, fn. 3.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

ASHLEY MASTERTON VS NEW BOX SOLUTIONS LLC ET AL

As a preliminary statement, the court notes that Defendants’ motion seeks an order compelling Plaintiff’s compliance with the December 20, 2018 order granting Defendants’ motion to compel further responses to request for production. Although Plaintiff contends generally that the instant motion is improper and that further meet and confer was required, Plaintiff has not cited the court to any authority for that proposition and the court is aware of none.

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MALIBU TOWNSHIP COUNCIL INC VS CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF M

California Government Code, Section 54960.1(a) provides that “[t]he district attorney or any interested person may commence an action by mandamus or injunction for the purpose of obtaining a judicial determination that an action taken by a legislative body of a local agency . . . is null and void under this section.”

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

STAN LEE ENTERTAINMENT, INC. VS JOAN CELIA LEE

Motion for Leave to Intervene Evidence in Reply As an preliminary matter, Defendant Joan Celia Lee as Trustee for the Lee Family Survivor’s Trust “A” dated June 12, 1985 (“J.C. Lee”) filed a declaration in opposition to POW!’s motion on July 9, 2020. In response, POW! filed a declaration, essentially its reply. The general rule of motion practice is that new evidence is not permitted within reply papers. (Jay v. Mahaffey (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1537–38.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 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.