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

76-100 of 10000 results

SAVE 30TH STREET PARKING VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO [E-FILE]

(2) Petitioner's Motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED. "[T]rial courts should evaluate two interrelated factors when deciding whether or not to issue a preliminary injunction. The first is the likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits at trial. The second is the interim harm that the plaintiff is likely to sustain if the injunction were denied as compared to the harm that the defendant is likely to suffer if the preliminary injunction were issued." (IT Corp. v.

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2020

CREDITORS ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, INC. VS COURTESY GENERAL, INC.

Merits As a preliminary matter, neither party contests that Defendant brought the instant motion within six months of the entry of default, pursuant to CCP 473(b). Defendant's motion and supplemental briefing argue for both discretionary and mandatory relief under CCP 473(b); the Court will address only the issue of mandatory relief. Defendant argues it retained Tracy Green to represent it with respect to "the workers compensation insurance matter and audit by State Fund" and kept Ms.

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2020

JOHN LOPEZ, VS GENERAL MOTORS, LLC

PRELIMINARY COMMENTS: As indicated below, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s request for attorney's fees is unreasonable, and is therefore reducing the costs and fees requested from $42,306.55 by slightly more than 50%, to $20,144.42.

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2020

SARA LAHLOU, ET AL VS. CAVALLO POINT, LLC, ET AL

The law does not permit precluding public injunctive relief in any forum And unlike the agreement in McGiIl, there is nothing in the subject Arbitration Agreement which precludes the arbitrator from issuing a public injunction in response to a claim brought by an employee “on an individual basis.” Instead, it provides that “[t]he Arbitrator shall apply the substantive law of the state in which the claim arose, or federal law, or both, as applicable to the claim(s) asserted. ...”

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2020

GREEN TREE HEADLANDS, LLC, ET AL AND CITY OF SAUSALITO

Petitioner contends that the City failed to consider or analyze the impact of the Code’s design review scheme in other provisions of the SMC and only focused on the definitions section of SMC section 10.88.040, finding that designation of property lines is a “ ‘preliminary decision’ ” that “ ‘should precede the design review phase.’ ” (Petition, 1| 60.) Petitioner alleges that the City’s decision that “ ‘Property Line A’ ” as designated on Mr.

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2020

  • Judge

    JAMES T, CHOU

  • County

    Marin County, CA

LUIS HUERTA VS AFIF ALHAKIM, ET AL.

Requests for Sanctions As a preliminary matter, in reply, Plaintiff amends his request for sanctions in connection with the instant motions.

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

KEVIN DARWIN V. ADVANTIX LENDING, INC., ET AL.

Injunction. Requests for injunctions are not independent causes of action. (5 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Pleading, § 806, p. 262.) Plaintiff’s request for an injunction depends on his other claims, faulty for above-described reasons, and is additionally moot besides because he asks the court to enjoin a foreclosure sale that has already occurred. (Complaint at ¶¶ 79, 82.) Amendment. Leave to amend should be allowed when a defect is capable of cure. (Vaccaro v.

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2020

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

Kay, Jr. iso Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Exh. A); (2) February 21, 2020 Declaration of Angela M. Rossi (Exh. B); (3) December 8, 2019 Declaration of James A. Kay, Jr. iso Opposition for Summary Adjudication (Exh. C); (4) April 3, 2018 Declaration of James A. Kay, Jr. iso Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Exh. D); (5) December 19, 2019 Declaration of Levi Lesches iso Reply iso Motion for Summary Adjudication (Exh.

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

1412 LORENE CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS EARTH MEDICAL SUPPLY CORPORATION INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

On May 14, 2020, Plaintiff applied ex parte for an application for an OSC re preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. On May 15, 2020, the Court (Department 1) denied the ex parte application without prejudice to filing a motion for preliminary injunction on regular notice. Presumably, Department 1 was not aware that Defendant had not yet been served. In any event, the Court notes that Plaintiff did file a proposed OSC on May 14, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

CEDILLO VS INDEPENDENT OPTIONS INC

Counsel are admonished to strictly comply with all provisions in the CMO related to motions for preliminary approval. As to the substance of the settlement agreement and related documents, the Court has only a few comments at this time. There is no explanation for why payments to be made under the settlement agreement need to be made in two installments. The release is overly broad.

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2020

MARKS VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO [E-FILE]

At plaintiff's insistence, the court calendared the case for a motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. Id. No such motion was filed. Instead, the City sought judgment on the pleadings as to its Public Utilities Department and its City Council (claiming they are not legal entities separate from the municipal corporation itself, and thus not proper defendants). ROA 35-39. Plaintiff previously sought to default the City Council, but this effort was rebuffed. ROA 29-31.

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

CHRISTINA L SIDROW ET AL VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

Schimmel $800 160.5 $128,440 Arya Rhodes $450 85.9 $38,655 973.1 $707,990 As a preliminary matter, given Plaintiff requests $19,668.11 in costs out of the $400,000 cap on attorneys’ fees and costs, his request for attorneys’ fees, after subtracting the requested costs, is $380,331.89. Plaintiff’s request for costs is reasonable and supported.

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

ANDY OBINNA VS DORIS ONUOHAH ET AL

Defendants attach verified responses signed in February 2020, state that in April 2020 they reserved those responses with the preliminary statement removed, and attach a proof of service showing service of verified discovery on April 15, 2020. Plaintiffs do not address the April 15, 2020 service of the discovery responses. Also, the motions to compel were all brought by Plaintiff Andy Obinna.

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2020

MOURIS AHDOUT VS HEKMATJAH FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ET AL

As a preliminary matter, the Court finds that the Vida Parties are the sole prevailing parties on the motion to expunge at issue here. The original motion to expunge was filed jointly by the Vida Parties and the Transferee Defendants regarding the lis pendens that were recorded against the respective properties in which the various defendants held interests. However, only the Vida Parties were successful in expunging the lis pendens on their properties.

  • Hearing

    Aug 04, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

BONNIE DUBOFF VS LINDA SCHERMER ET AL

Schermer, BC617750 On August 4, 2020, plaintiff Bonnie Duboff presented to the court another Ex Parte Application for an Order Setting an Expedited Hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (“Ex Parte Application”).

  • Hearing

    Aug 04, 2020

CHRISTOPHER BORUNDA VS MY MANAGEMENT CO., INC., ET AL.

Defendants have not opposed the OSC and have not shown any irreparable harm if the preliminary injunction is granted. The balance of harms weighs heavily for granting the preliminary injunction. Having considered Plaintiff’s probability of prevailing and the balance of harms, the court grants the preliminary injunction.

  • Hearing

    Aug 04, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

MANUELA 'AILA' KAHLFUSS VS. CALIFORNIA FAMILY HEALTH LLC, A DELAWARE COMPANY

The Class Period is further limited to June 24, 2017 through Preliminary Approval [i.e., March 6, 2020]. (ROA 47 at 3-4.) The Court's Order granting the motion for preliminary approval (ROA 47) is fully incorporated by reference here. The Court will not herein repeat prior discussions of the procedural history of this action or the allegations in the pleading. Before final approval of a class action settlement, notice must be given to the class. (See California Rules of Court, Rule 3.769(e), (f).)

  • Hearing

    Aug 04, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

PATRICIA GOMEZ, ET AL. VS ADELA IRIMES, ET AL.

Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction barring defendant from proceeding with an eviction prior to the hearing on the preliminary injunction hearing, scheduled for 8/27/20. Plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm (loss of their home during the ongoing pandemic) if the eviction takes place before a hearing on the merits. Additionally, defendant would suffer no appreciable harm if she is barred from proceeding with the eviction until the preliminary injunction hearing a few weeks away.

  • Hearing

    Aug 04, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

GARRY D BRADBERRY VS FCA US LLC,

As a preliminary matter, Defendants reference the filing of a Request for Judicial Notice of Exhibits numbered 1 through 6 in their separate statement of fact. However, no such request was ever filed. C. Plaintiff’s Objections Lodged in Separate Statement. As a further preliminary matter, California Rules of Court, rule 3.1354(b) provides, “objections to evidence must be served and filed separately from the other papers in support of or in opposition to the motion” and in the format set forth therein.

  • Hearing

    Aug 04, 2020

JACQUELINE CARDONA VS KATHLEEN WEBB

Petitioner failed to perform the FSTs as explained and demonstrated, and she refused to submit to a preliminary alcohol screening test (“PAS”). (AR 9, 11, 17, 27.) Based on Petitioner’s vehicular collision, her objective signs of intoxication, and her poor performance on the FSTs, Officer Mitchell determined that Petitioner was driving while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage. (AR 9, 11, 17, 27.) Officer Mitchell placed Petitioner under arrest at 7:15 p.m. (AR 9.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 04, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

STOP TOXIC HOUSING IN PASADENA, INC. VS DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL, ET AL.

., ground-water flow directions, over land flow patterns) to give a preliminary estimate of the locations of contaminants that may have migrated. An iterative monitoring program is then implemented so that, by using increasingly accurate analytical techniques, the locations and concentrations of contaminants that have migrated into the environment can be documented. (AR 1564.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 03, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

ANTONIA SALAZAR, ET AL. VS HENG LU, ET AL.

Analysis “Attachment is a prejudgment remedy which requires a court to make a preliminary determination of the merits of a dispute. It allows a creditor who has applied for an attachment following the statutory guidelines and established a prima facie claim to have a debtor's assets seized and held until final adjudication at trial.” (Lorber Industries, Inc. v. Turbulence, Inc. (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 532, 535.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 03, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

ZHENG V GOALAND ENERGY CONSERVATION TECH USA LIMITED

The FACC alleges that on “November 5, 2019, GOALAND CHINA decided to dissolve GOALAND. (FACC, ¶ 10.) The FACC further alleges that “[o]n or about November 11, 2019, the corporate counsel of GOALAND CHINA, Yangyang Wang (“Ms. Wang”), sent ZHENG an email, telling ZHENG of GOALAND CHINA’s decision to dissolve GOALAND, and its resolutions to remove ZHENG’s positions as the Chief Financial Officer and General Manager of GOALAND. (FACC ¶ 11.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 01, 2020

DANIEL ARAIZA V. HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE COMPANY, ET AL.

If preliminary approval is granted, the final approval hearing shall take place on December 4, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 1.

  • Hearing

    Jul 31, 2020

SINCO TECHNOLOGIES PTE LTD V. SOON, ET AL.

Seaquist (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1, 10.) 25 It has been held that a preliminary injunction does not become operative until a bond is 26 furnished; without the bond a preliminary injunction is a nullity. (Condor Enterprises, Ltd. v. 27 Valley View State Bank (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 734, 741.) Therefore, a court “may not punish 28 1 with contempt disobedience to a preliminary injunction which is invalid because a bond was not 2 posted.”

  • Hearing

    Jul 31, 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.