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

26-50 of 10000 results

JP COHEN LLC VS RYAN A CHAICHI

Evidentiary Objections As a preliminary note, the Cross-Defendants object to all declarations Chaichi submits in support of his opposition. Specifically, the Cross-Defendants argue that Chaichi, Joann Chaichi and attorney T. Khan’s declarations are all inadmissible to support his opposition because they were not executed and instead only include typed names for each declarant.

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

CYRUS ETEMAD VS VERJ SARKISSIAN, ET AL.

Motion for Preliminary Injunction On February 21, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction.

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

LONG TENG GAO, ET AL. V. BETHANY LIOU, ET AL.

On or about 12 July 2019, a majority of the limited partners of defendant Cupertino Fund voted to dissolve defendant Cupertino Fund to facilitate the prompt return of Gao Plaintiffs’ funds. (FAC, ¶49.) Defendants Liou and GCRC failed to report on the vote and failed to promptly dissolve defendant Cupertino Fund. (FAC, ¶50.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 13, 2020

SONIA GARCIA VS. VENTURA COASTAL LLC

TENTATIVE RULING FOR AUGUST 13, 2020 ON MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT The court grants preliminary approval of the class settlement, but is inclined to reduce the class representative fee to $2500.

  • Hearing

    Aug 13, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

TEJERO VS. NRG ENERGY SERVICES

HEARING ON MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT FILED BY AARON TEJERO JR. * TENTATIVE RULING: * Plaintiff Aaron Tejero, Jr., moves for preliminary approval of his class action and PAGA settlement. A. Background and Settlement Terms The original complaint was filed May 25, 2018. It is a class action complaint alleging failure to pay wages and/or overtime, failure to provide meal periods and rest breaks, and failure to pay for time or expenses associated with obtaining mandatory drug tests.

  • Hearing

    Aug 13, 2020

LE'ELDRED PALM SR VS ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS INC ET AL

Discussion Meet and Confer As a preliminary matter, the Court finds Rizi has satisfied the meet and confer requirement of CCP §§ 430.41, 435.5. (Morgan Decl. ¶ 3.) Second and Fourth Causes of Action – Negligence and Unruh Civil Rights Act Negligence requires duty, breach of duty, proximate cause, and damages. (Peredia v. HR Mobile Servs. Inc. (2018) 25 Cal.Ap.5th 680, 687.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 13, 2020

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

STEED VS. KHALILI

Injunction The second Request for Judicial Notice requests that the Court judicially notice Defendant Masoud Khalili’s Responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission, Set No.

  • Hearing

    Aug 13, 2020

LEWIS VS WESTERN DENTAL SERVICES INC

Preliminary Matters Although defendant provided statutory notice of the hearing, plaintiff Britanya Lewis failed to file or serve any opposition. ROA ## 94 (notice rescheduling hearing), 95 (notice of non-opposition). Given the lack of opposition, it appears that plaintiff concedes the merits of the demurrer. The Court notes that while plaintiff was given leave to amend, she actually filed two amended complaints. ROA ## 56, 57.

  • Hearing

    Aug 13, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

PARMANAND KUMAR VS FRIENDLY HILLS ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOC.

Similarly, “an injunction may not issue unless the alleged misconduct is ongoing or likely to occur.” (People ex rel. Herrera v. Stender (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 614, 630, internal citation omitted.) In his request for declaratory relief, Plaintiff cites to past wrongs. (TAC, ¶ 119.) Some of these wrongs present ongoing harms, like the inability to access records and the inability to turn his lot into three lots for financial gain. Accordingly, the court OVERRULES the demurrer to this cause of action.

  • Hearing

    Aug 13, 2020

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

HENRICHS VS TAYLOR

Preliminary Matters Although plaintiff did not file a traditional opposition to the motion, her counsel filed an opposing declaration. ROA #147. There is no prejudice in the Court considering this declaration, as moving party filed a reply ("supplemental response") to it. ROA # 149. More importantly, the Court is directed to consider "all matters relevant to a proper determination of the motion," which clearly includes a declaration. Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.1342(e)(1) (emphasis added).

  • Hearing

    Aug 13, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MCMILLAN VS CHAKER

As a preliminary matter, the claim appears to be barred by the applicable statute of limitations. (Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1.) Plaintiffs' claim is not saved by the tolling provision at 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d), because based on the facts alleged, Plaintiffs' claim against Nicole Chaker expired on February 26, 2016 and Plaintiffs did not file their Complaint in U.S. District Court until August 29, 2016. Plaintiffs also assert this cause of action is either tolled by Code of Civil Procedure section 351.

  • Hearing

    Aug 13, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MCMILLAN VS CHAKER

As a preliminary matter, the claim appears to be barred by the applicable statute of limitations. (Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1.) Plaintiffs' claim is not saved by the tolling provision at 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d), because based on the facts alleged, Plaintiffs' claim against Nicole Chaker expired on February 26, 2016 and Plaintiffs did not file their Complaint in U.S. District Court until August 29, 2016. Plaintiffs also assert this cause of action is either tolled by Code of Civil Procedure section 351.

  • Hearing

    Aug 13, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MUSGROVE VS. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

The issue of whether or not the case should have been dismissed at the OSC is not relevant to the preliminary relief sought.

  • Hearing

    Aug 13, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

RAMIRO MORALES OLIVAS VS. EDCO WASTE AND RECYCLING SERVICES INC [E-FILE]

The Court GRANTS Preliminary Approval. The parties to appear to set a Final Approval date.

  • Hearing

    Aug 13, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

FLORENCE FLEMING VS ANNIE CAMPBELL, ET AL.

If a preliminary injunction is not issued, Plaintiff will lose the Property. This harm is mitigated by the fact that the Property is not Plaintiff’s residence and her admission that she plans to sell it. Fleming Decl., ¶12. If a preliminary injunction is issued, Defendants will suffer only monetary harm. The balance of hardships favors issuance of an injunction. F. Conclusion The application for a preliminary injunction is granted. Plaintiff does not discuss the matter of a bond.

  • Hearing

    Aug 13, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

RIVERA VS. LYON MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC.

Such an agreement “also violates Civil Code section 3513’s injunction that ‘a law established for a public reason cannot be contravened by a private agreement.’” (Iskanian, supra, 59 Cal.4th at 383).

  • Hearing

    Aug 13, 2020

SANDY D HANBY VS ELITE SHOW SERVICES INC [E-FILE]

Given that Plaintiff worked a single shift in the notice period and the issue of whether she suffered a Labor Code violation is in dispute, the court finds it is in the interests of judicial economy to determine the issue of standing as a preliminary matter. The court will hear from the parties as to how to proceed. Defendant Elite Show Services, Inc.'s Motion for Protective Order Regarding Plaintiff Sandy Hanby's Discovery Requests is granted.

  • Hearing

    Aug 13, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

MCMILLAN VS CHAKER

As a preliminary matter, the claim appears to be barred by the applicable statute of limitations. (Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1.) Plaintiffs' claim is not saved by the tolling provision at 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d), because based on the facts alleged, Plaintiffs' claim against Nicole Chaker expired on February 26, 2016 and Plaintiffs did not file their Complaint in U.S. District Court until August 29, 2016. Plaintiffs also assert this cause of action is either tolled by Code of Civil Procedure section 351.

  • Hearing

    Aug 13, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MAYNARD VS GORDON

He claims the evidence shows Officer Gonzalez failed to properly admonish him regarding implied consent, Officer Gonzalez created officer-induced confusion regarding whether the preliminary alcohol screening test ("PAS") petitioner took satisfied the chemical test requirements, and petitioner had a right to an attorney and right to remain silent as applied to the chemical test. Id. at pp.13-18.

  • Hearing

    Aug 13, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

HENRICHS VS TAYLOR

Preliminary Matters Although plaintiff did not file a traditional opposition to the motion, her counsel filed an opposing declaration. ROA #147. There is no prejudice in the Court considering this declaration, as moving party filed a reply ("supplemental response") to it. ROA # 149. More importantly, the Court is directed to consider "all matters relevant to a proper determination of the motion," which clearly includes a declaration. Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.1342(e)(1) (emphasis added).

  • Hearing

    Aug 13, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ENTERTAINMENT REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS MAGNOLIA REAL ESTATE CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Merits The Court's March 30, 2020 preliminary ruling indicated that the damage award in this instant case should be subject to a 10% interest cap, with interest accruing starting February 13, 2020, the date of the verdict.

  • Hearing

    Aug 13, 2020

VASQUEZ VS. DELTA FRAMING, INC.

The Court has received and considered Plaintiffs’ renewed motion for preliminary approval of class action and PAGA settlement. Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval is GRANTED as follows. Plaintiffs to submit an updated proposed order within 5 court days, showing updated dates in paragraph 15 to allow sufficient time for the mailing of, and putative class member responses to, the Notice Packet. Moving party to give notice, including to the LWDA.

  • Hearing

    Aug 13, 2020

SANDY D HANBY VS ELITE SHOW SERVICES INC [E-FILE]

Given that Plaintiff worked a single shift in the notice period and the issue of whether she suffered a Labor Code violation is in dispute, the court finds it is in the interests of judicial economy to determine the issue of standing as a preliminary matter. The court will hear from the parties as to how to proceed. Defendant Elite Show Services, Inc.'s Motion for Protective Order Regarding Plaintiff Sandy Hanby's Discovery Requests is granted.

  • Hearing

    Aug 13, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

SALVADOR AGUIRRE VS WESTROCK SERVICES LLC., ET AL.

As a preliminary matter, the Court finds the 21-day “safe harbor” requirement has been met. (CCP §§ 128.5(f)(1)(B), 128.7(c)(1).) Sanctions Pursuant to CCP § 128.5 Defendants seek $57,167.14 in monetary sanctions pursuant to CCP § 128.5 against Plaintiff and his counsel as a result of alleged bad faith conduct in filing and prosecuting the instant case. In their motion, Defendants further request dismissal of the entire action with prejudice.

  • Hearing

    Aug 13, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

PASTRANA VS EDER

An attorney resisting discovery of a witness statement based on absolute privilege must make a preliminary or foundational showing that disclosure would reveal his or her "impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal research or theories." (§ 2018.030, subd. (a).) Coito, 54 Cal.4th at 495–496. The court finds Eder fails to make a showing that the surveillance footage at issue contains his attorneys' "impressions, conclusions, opinions or legal research of theories."

  • Hearing

    Aug 13, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

  « first    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.