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

226-250 of 10000 results

WENDY DONHAM VS. REAL TIME RESOLUTIONS

Standards Applicable to Determination of Motion for Preliminary Injunction The decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction "generally rests in the sound discretion of the trial court." (Millennium Rock Mortgage, Inc. v. T.D. Service Co. (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 804, 808.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

YES ONLINE INC VS EXCLUSIVE GLOBAL LOGISTICS INC

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that the evidence in support of this claim is a declaration by counsel for the Collection Agency asserting that she obtained information that the Trucking Company's corporate status had been revived by visiting the website maintained by the Georgia Secretary of State and attached to the declaration. (ROA 57, ¶ 2.) However, no such exhibits are actually attached to the declaration. (See ROA 57, Ex. B.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

HANSON AGGREGATES PACIFIC SOUTHWEST LLC VS. EUGENE J CASTIGLIONE TRUSTEE OF THE EUGENE J CASTIGLIONE FAMILY TRUST 02-09-04 [IMAGED[]

Plaintiff Hanson Aggregates Pacific Southwest, LLC's request for preliminary injunction is DENIED. (ROA 10.) "No preliminary injunction shall be granted without notice to the opposing party." (Code Civ. Proc. § 527(a).) Here, Plaintiff filed proofs of service as to Defendants Eugene Castiglione and Andrew Draper. (ROA 19, 20.) However, both proofs of service state they were "posted on the no trespassing sign." Posting is not a valid method of service of a civil action. (See Code Civ.

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

PETITION OF MEDIMPACT HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS INC

Mandatory preliminary injunctions are rarely granted. Teachers Ins. & Annuity Assn. v. Furlotti, 170 Cal.App.4th 1487, 1494 (1999). In deciding whether to grant a preliminary injunction, the court is entitled to consider the public interest. See City of San Diego v. Southern Calif. Tel. Corp., 42 Cal. 2d 110, 119-120 (1954). 3. Request for Judicial Notice.

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

CRAIG R. GUSTAFSON, ET AL. VS COAST PACKING COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

and (2) are unable to agree with the moving parties upon the fair value of those shares, and (3) give bond with sufficient security to pay the estimated reasonable expenses (including attorneys’ fees) of the moving parties if those expenses are recoverable under subdivision (c), the court upon application of the purchasing parties, either in the pending action or in a proceeding initiated in the superior court of the proper county by the purchasing parties in the case of a voluntary election to wind up and dissolve

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SITI FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. VS SUSAN B. SEIFERT , ET AL.

In that action, the court granted Sokolin’s request for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the sale and denied NYGF’s motion to expunge the lis pendens Sokolin had recorded against the Subject Property. (RJN, Ex.3, 5). On 8/12/19, SITI filed the underlying complaint in this action (19CHCV00649).

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

AMERICAN TECHNOLOGIES INC VS CAROLYN LOWD DANIELS ET AL

As a preliminary matter, the Daniels have asked for summary adjudication of two issues. The Daniels’ request for summary adjudication is denied. Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (f)(1) allows for a defendant to seek summary adjudication of an issue as a way of completely disposing of a cause of action. There is no provision of summary adjudication of issues when such adjudication is requested by a plaintiff. a.

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

MITCHELL VS THE TAUNTON PRESS INC [E-FILE]

Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement is DENIED. (ROA 46.) The court has now reviewed Plaintiff's Supplemental Brief in support of his motion. The supplemental brief now provides further information regarding the number of individuals to whom notice would be sent; the potential class size; the cost to administer the settlement; the estimated amount to be available for distribution to the class; and the average estimated recovery to class members.

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

YES ONLINE INC VS EXCLUSIVE GLOBAL LOGISTICS INC

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that the evidence in support of this claim is a declaration by counsel for the Collection Agency asserting that she obtained information that the Trucking Company's corporate status had been revived by visiting the website maintained by the Georgia Secretary of State and attached to the declaration. (ROA 57, ¶ 2.) However, no such exhibits are actually attached to the declaration. (See ROA 57, Ex. B.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

YES ONLINE INC VS EXCLUSIVE GLOBAL LOGISTICS INC

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that the evidence in support of this claim is a declaration by counsel for the Collection Agency asserting that she obtained information that the Trucking Company's corporate status had been revived by visiting the website maintained by the Georgia Secretary of State and attached to the declaration. (ROA 57, ¶ 2.) However, no such exhibits are actually attached to the declaration. (See ROA 57, Ex. B.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

YES ONLINE INC VS EXCLUSIVE GLOBAL LOGISTICS INC

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that the evidence in support of this claim is a declaration by counsel for the Collection Agency asserting that she obtained information that the Trucking Company's corporate status had been revived by visiting the website maintained by the Georgia Secretary of State and attached to the declaration. (ROA 57, ¶ 2.) However, no such exhibits are actually attached to the declaration. (See ROA 57, Ex. B.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

YES ONLINE INC VS EXCLUSIVE GLOBAL LOGISTICS INC

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that the evidence in support of this claim is a declaration by counsel for the Collection Agency asserting that she obtained information that the Trucking Company's corporate status had been revived by visiting the website maintained by the Georgia Secretary of State and attached to the declaration. (ROA 57, ¶ 2.) However, no such exhibits are actually attached to the declaration. (See ROA 57, Ex. B.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

STEPHANIE ROJAS VS CONSTELLATION HOMEBUILDER SYSTEMS INC [E-FILE]

Conclusion For the reasons stated, plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval is GRANTED. Plaintiff's proposed order will be the formal order of the Court. Plaintiff is directed to serve notice on all parties within two court days of this ruling.

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

GIOVANNI NAVARRO VS AUTO COLLISION GROUP, INC., ET AL.

As a preliminary matter, the Court finds that Defendant has failed to satisfy his burden on the first prong of the anti-SLAPP analysis. Therefore, the Court generally does not need to rule on Plaintiff’s evidentiary objections because they mostly involve the second prong of the anti-SLAPP analysis. (But see City of Cotati v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JAIME SUBIALDEA VS DURAN FREIGHT CORP

Preliminary Matters In light of the preference to determine matters on their merits when appropriate, the Court exercises its discretion to consider plaintiffs' late-filed opposition. Background The State demurs to the first cause of action – dangerous condition of public property/wrongful death - on grounds the FAC fails to state facts to constitute a cause of action under Government Code section 835.

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

CINDY LUCRECIA GONZALEZ, ET AL. VS LOUIS SPRAGUE

Sprague also argues that no injunction is available because the defective conditions of the premises are alleged to have existed for a long time. (Demurrer at pp. 8–9.) But the cited authority dealt with a case where the conduct complained of had ceased decades before the case was filed. (Mangini v. Aerojet-General Corp. (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 1125, 1156.) Plaintiffs here allege that the conduct continues today. (Complaint ¶ 22.) This is a significant distinction. The Demurrer is OVERRULED.

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

TURPIN VS THE BLUE SKY FUND LLC

Preliminary Matters Defendants' request for judicial notice of the complaint, first amended complaint and declaration in support of plaintiffs' motion for leave to file fifth amended complaint in the related case no. 15-17265 is granted. Evid. Code § 452(d). The Court takes judicial notice of the existence of the records, and not the truth of any statements that are reasonably disputable.

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ALTAMED HEALTH SERVICES CORPORATION VS NS AND ASSOCIATES LLC, ET AL.

Conclusion The application for a preliminary injunction is GRANTED. Plaintiff to post an undertaking of $20,000.

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

GRUPO COMUNITARIO DE SAN MIGUEL CUEVAS V. HARMONYCOMMUNITIES, INC.

In considering whether to issue a preliminary injunction, the court should consider (1) the likelihood that the moving party will prevail on the merits at trial, and (2) the interim harm that the moving party is likely to sustain if the injunction were denied as compared to the harm that the opposing party is likely to suffer if the preliminary injunction were issued. (IT Corp. v. County of Imperial (1983) 35 Cal.3d 63, 69-70.) In considering these factors, the court “balances the equities.” (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

YES ONLINE INC VS EXCLUSIVE GLOBAL LOGISTICS INC

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that the evidence in support of this claim is a declaration by counsel for the Collection Agency asserting that she obtained information that the Trucking Company's corporate status had been revived by visiting the website maintained by the Georgia Secretary of State and attached to the declaration. (ROA 57, ¶ 2.) However, no such exhibits are actually attached to the declaration. (See ROA 57, Ex. B.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

STARZ ACQUISITION, LLC, ET AL. VS ALLIED WORLD ASSURANCE COMPANY (U.S.) INC., ET AL.

The Court has several preliminary comments about the RFPs. First, to the extent Defendants assert that information is confidential, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs that the parties have a protective order in place for this very purpose. Confidentiality per se (as opposed to violation of a right to privacy) is therefore not a ground to withhold documents.

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

JAIME SUBIALDEA VS DURAN FREIGHT CORP

Preliminary Matters In light of the preference to determine matters on their merits when appropriate, the Court exercises its discretion to consider plaintiffs' late-filed opposition. Background The State demurs to the first cause of action – dangerous condition of public property/wrongful death - on grounds the FAC fails to state facts to constitute a cause of action under Government Code section 835.

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

HERNANDEZ VS DUNBAR ARMORED INC

TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement is GRANTED. The Court will adopt as its own the proposed order filed on January 31, 2020. The Court hereby sets the final approval hearing for February 5, 2021 at 10:30 a.m.

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

FAB ROCK INVESTMENTS, LLC VS YEHUDA BENEZRA, ET AL.

Preliminary Issue Fab Rock’s moving papers are supported only by an attorney declaration. Grossman may have personal knowledge of the events occurring during and after the Arbitration, but his declaration lacks personal knowledge for events occurring before that date. The Declaration of Aurturo Rubinstein submitted with the reply provides some evidence that would correct these failures, except that it should have been submitted with the moving papers.

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

LOREN ROBINSON VS CITY OF INGLEWOOD

The court has initial jurisdiction to remedy violations of POBRA and may issue an injunction or other extraordinary relief to remedy the violation and to prevent future violations. §3309.5(c), (d)(1). The court may award a civil penalty of up to $25,000 upon finding that a public safety department maliciously violated any provision of POBRA with the intent to injure the public safety officer. §3309.5(e). D. Statement of Facts 1. Petitioner’s Evidence a.

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

  « first    1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 400     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.