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

51-75 of 10000 results

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GEORG LINGENBRINK VS. STEPHEN C GAMES

Preliminary Matters Plaintiff Georg Lingenbrink's request for to take judicial notice of the Court's March 12, 2020 order and Grande's notice of appeal in this case is unnecessary, and so the Court declines to do so. Background The Court previously denied Grande's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict ("JNOV") and denied its motion for new trial. ROA 356.

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

KIM VS. LEAFFILTER NORTH, LLC

PLT Edward Kim Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement ***Case transferred to CXC***

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

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

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

FARZANEH SHAFAEIAN-FARD.. VS SELENE FINANCE, LP..; ET AL

“[W]hen a judgment is entered in favor of the defendant, the preliminary injunction dissolves without the necessity of a formal motion to dissolve.” City of Oakland v. Superior Court (1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 565, 569. When a preliminary injunction is dissolved as having been improperly granted, defendant can recover damages by proceeding against the injunction bond. See, Dickey v. Rosso (1972) 23 Cal.App.3d 493, 497-498.

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

ARROW DISPOSAL SERVICES, INC. VS GRONEMEIER AND ASSOCIATES, INC., ET AL.

The court rules as follows: Exhibit 11 – denied because of inadequate authentication Exhibit 13 – granted Exhibit 2 – denied because of inadequate authentication Exhibit 14 – granted Facts As a preliminary matter, the court notes that Plaintiff’s responsive separate statement improperly contains extensive legal argument that is outside the permissible scope for a responsive separate statement. (Cal.

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

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

WITMER VS CENTAUR HOLDINGS UNITED STATES

The Case management Order issued in this case includes detailed requirements for a motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement. It is apparent counsel did not read the CMO before filling the motion as it is woefully inadequate. The motion is denied without prejudice. ANY REQUEST FOR ORAL AGUMENT SHALL BE HEARD AT 9AM

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

LUIS OREJEL VS CATALINA CARPET MILLS, LLC

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Adjudication of the Second Cause of Action for Failure to Prevent Discrimination or Harassment is GRANTED. 3rd Cause of Action: Tortious Discharge As a preliminary matter, in Plaintiff’s opposition papers, the “tortious discharge” claim is labelled as being “in violation of Government Code section 12940(a),” which would in fact be a FEHA discrimination claim.

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ERICA CORONA VS PROPERTY WEST INC [E-FILE]

Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement is GRANTED. (ROA 215.) The final approval hearing is scheduled for January 8, 2021 at 8:30 a.m. in this department. Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees and costs and Plaintiffs' service awards is also scheduled for January 8, 2021 at 8:30 a.m. in this department. The court intends to sign the proposed order after confirmation of this tentative ruling.

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

STEVEN SPINOGLIO, ET AL. VS. SHALINI SAMAGH NICOLAS ET AL

ANALYSIS: Motion for Preliminary Injunction Standard of Review Code of Civ.

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

89 ACAPULCO, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, DERIVATIVELY ON BEHALF OF AUXIN VENTURES, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS DAVID ELIAS, ET AL.

Section 1.20 of the Agreement states the following: “The Class A Member shall have the exclusive right to vote on any matter related to or affecting the Company’s Business or its management, including, but not limited to, the exclusive right to (i) amend or modify this Agreement except as provided by Section 12.6, and (ii) dissolve the Company, except as may otherwise be provided herein or as may be mandated by the Act.

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

  « 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.