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

101-125 of 10000 results

LORETTA RICHARDSON VS JONES AND JONES MANAGEMENT GROUP INC

If that preliminary analysis reveals a trivial defect, the court considers evidence of any additional factors bearing on whether the defect presented a substantial risk of injury. 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.” (Id. (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted).) Here, the Court cannot conclude, as a matter of law, that the defect was trivial.

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2020

BORSH VS SALTZMAN

The trial court did not make findings that a nexus existed between the emergency situation created by the COVID-19 pandemic, and the purported need to delay preliminary examination, such as by balancing due process interests in timely preliminary examinations against specific risks from pandemic.

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

DAVID EIMAN V. LION RAISINS, INC.

In opposition, plaintiff notes that he is aware of no circumstances that would warrant non-disclosure: there is no suspect at large, no real dispute over what happened, and the police department as well as the District Attorney’s Office have already released or agreed to release preliminary reports. (See Paboojian Decl.) Accordingly, this factor weighs neither for nor against a stay. (5) The interest of the public in the pending civil and criminal litigation Neither party addresses this factor.

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2020

ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL. VS LUIZ ALFONSO FUENTES , ET AL.

Before the hearing the court should make a preliminary determination of whether the proposed settlement and the method of payment appear reasonable in relation to the potential liability and the nature and extent of the injuries. It is especially important to determine whether the minor’s condition is permanent, and whether it is stable or likely to worsen. (Ibid.) The court should also make a preliminary determination of whether the costs, expense and attorney’s fees requested appear reasonable. (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2020

MARVASTI VS GERGORY FUNDING LLC

A preliminary injunction is appropriate when pecuniary compensation would not afford adequate relief; or where it would be extremely difficult to ascertain the amount of compensation which would afford adequate relief. Code Civ. Proc. 526(a). The burden is on the moving party to show all elements necessary to support issuance of a preliminary injunction. O'Connell v. Superior Court (2006) 141 Cal. App. 4th 1452, 1481.

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

AVIS COPELIN, REAL PARTY IN INTEREST, ET AL. VS REHABBERS FINANCIAL INC, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction on July 19, 2019. On July 23, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Supplemental Motion for Order to Show Cause re: Preliminary Injunction. On July 25, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Second Supplemental Motion for Order to Show Cause re: Preliminary Injunction, prior to the hearing. On July 25, 2019, this Court continued the hearing to September 9, 2019 to allow defendants’ counsel to be served with the motion and to respond.

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

LIZET LUEVANO VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY

Given that Plaintiff has not shown a reasonable likelihood of success on her injunctive relief cause of action, the Court does not reach the second prong—i..e, a balancing of harms—of a preliminary injunction analysis. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction is denied. It is so ordered. Dated: , 2020 Hon. Jon R.

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Superior Court (2012) 54 Cal.4th 480, 499-500, the party resisting discovery based on absolute work product protection must make a preliminary showing that disclosure would reveal the attorney’s “impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal research or theories.” Defendant herein did not make that showing. Defense Counsel’s declaration is devoid of a discussion in this regard.

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2020

JANE DOE VS JABARI SHELTON ET AL

Discussion As a preliminary matter, the Court reminds the parties that “Electronic documents must by electronically filed in PDF, text searchable format when technologically feasible without impairment of the document’s image.” (First Amended General Order re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil, 5/3/19.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2020

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JAMMIE A. HILL VS BEACH CITY TREATMENT, LLC, ET AL.

Superior Court (2012) 54 Cal.4th 480, 499-500, the party resisting discovery based on absolute work product protection must make a preliminary showing that disclosure would reveal the attorney’s “impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal research or theories.” Defendant herein did not make that showing. Defense Counsel’s declaration is devoid of a discussion in this regard.

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

LIZET LUEVANO VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY

Given that Plaintiff has not shown a reasonable likelihood of success on her injunctive relief cause of action, the Court does not reach the second prong—i..e, a balancing of harms—of a preliminary injunction analysis. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction is denied. It is so ordered. Dated: , 2020 Hon. Jon R.

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

DOLLAR SHAVE CLUB INC ET AL VS EDGEWELL PERSONAL CARE CO ET

This action is not a class or representative action, and plaintiffs’ complaint is insufficient to form the basis for an injunction as it would pertain to individuals other than O’Malley. For the same reasons set forth above, with respect to plaintiffs’ claim for declaratory relief, there is no longer a need to enjoin defendants from enforcing the noncompete provisions in the agreements to which O’Malley is a party. Therefore, defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted in its entirety.

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2020

MARVASTI VS GERGORY FUNDING LLC

A preliminary injunction is appropriate when pecuniary compensation would not afford adequate relief; or where it would be extremely difficult to ascertain the amount of compensation which would afford adequate relief. Code Civ. Proc. 526(a). The burden is on the moving party to show all elements necessary to support issuance of a preliminary injunction. O'Connell v. Superior Court (2006) 141 Cal. App. 4th 1452, 1481.

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

SANCHEZ VS EVANS TIRE AND SERVICE CENTERS INC [E-FILE]

TENTATIVE RULING The unopposed motion of plaintiffs Marco Sanchez and Carlos Veal, individually and on behalf of the class, for preliminary approval of the class action settlement is conditionally granted. Although notice of the letter claim was served, plaintiffs will need to file a proof of service or declaration showing the first amended complaint ("FAC") as well as the settlement, have been given to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency as required by Labor Code section 2699(l)(1).

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

MICHAEL ROBERTO, AN INDIVIDUAL VS THOMAS ROBERTO, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CO-TRUSTEE OF THE TOM AND LYNNE ROBERTO LIVING TRUS, ET AL.

Sixth Cause of Action (Temporary and Permanent Injunction). Plaintiff seeks an injunction against Defendants preventing them from living on the property, entering onto the property or interfering with Plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of the property. (1AC, ¶¶ 42, 43.) For the reasons discussed above re: the second cause of action, the evidence submitted by Defendant shows that Plaintiff is not entitled to exclusive possession of the property.

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

EVER BROWN VS LOAI KHOUJA, ET AL.

However, an objecting party may be entitled to protection if it can make a preliminary or foundational showing that answering the interrogatory would reveal the attorney's tactics, impressions, or evaluation of the case, or would result in opposing counsel taking undue advantage of the attorney's industry or efforts.

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2020

ST JAMES RESTORATION TABERNACLE VS WALL JR

The granting of an injunction in the St. James Action, cannot be used to demonstrate that the claims of the Moore parties are a sham. (Yee v. American Nat’l Ins. Co. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 453, 458 [“the order for a preliminary injunction does not determine the ultimate right to a permanent injunction---i.e., a preliminary injunction is not a determination on the merits” unless the question before the court is one of law].) The Moore parties are correct that the authorities cited by St.

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2020

KYRA GROVES ET AL VS MAPLEBEAR INC

On August 28, 2019, in the Groves Action, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement.[1] On October 22, 2019, in the Groves Action, Blackham filed a notice of substitution of counsel indicating that: (1) he has exercised his right to recuse (substitute out) his prior counsel of Litchten & Liss-Riordan P.C.; and (2) he was substituting in The Tidtrick Law Firm LLP as his counsel.

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

BEATA ZANONE ET AL. VS BERBERIAN EUROPEAN MOTORS, LLC ET AL.

Plaintiffs’ motion for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs is set for hearing on July 31, 2020, at 9:00 a.m in Dept. 10C The Court has completed a preliminary review of the points and authorities, declarations, and other writings submitted in support of and in opposition to said motion but has not completed an in-depth review of the papers and has not heard the arguments of counsel.

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2020

  • Judge Jayne Lee
  • County

    San Joaquin County, CA

CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VS INDIAN PEAK PROPERTIES, LLC, A NEVADA CORPORATION, ET AL.

As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff withdraws its request for costs in connection with Item No. 5 (service of process) in the total amount of $356.07. (Opposition, pg. 2.) Plaintiff also agrees to strike $91.10 in costs from its $595.05 request for costs in Item No. 14 (fees for electronic filing or service), such that the it only requests $503.95. (Opposition, pg. 2.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

CINDY M. HANN V. THERESA LYNN COLOSI

Nature of Proceedings: Order to Show Cause re: Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining order CASE: Cindy M. Hann v. Theresa Lynn Colosi, Case No. 20CV01984 (Judge Sterne) HEARING DATE: July 27, 2020 MATTER: Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) re Preliminary Injunction ATTORNEYS: Briana E. McCarthy for Plaintiff Cindy M. Hann Theresa Lynn Colosi, Defendant in Pro Per TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction is denied.

  • Hearing

    Jul 27, 2020

CINDY M. HANN V. THERESA LYNN COLOSI

Nature of Proceedings: Order to Show Cause re: Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining order Tentative

  • Hearing

    Jul 27, 2020

JONAS SVENSSON V. I073 INVESTMENTS, INC., ET AL.

Preliminary Injunction Standards: The court may grant a preliminary injunction when it appears by the complaint that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief demanded or the commission or continuance of some act during the litigation would produce great or irreparable injury to a party to the action. CCP § 526(a).

  • Hearing

    Jul 27, 2020

JONAS SVENSSON V. I073 INVESTMENTS, INC., ET AL.

Nature of Proceedings: Motion Compel Arbitration and Stay Judicial Proceedings; Motion Preliminary Injunction Tentative

  • Hearing

    Jul 27, 2020

MATTHEW F OSEAS VS. VINCENT GILBERT HERNANDEZ

Preliminary Matters - Supplemental Evidence The City filed and served supplemental evidence with its initial reply. The court did not grant leave for the City to do so. The court is not required to consider accept, and in its discretion may ignore, evidence presented on the motion but not cited in a party's separate statement. (See San Diego Watercrafts, Inc. v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 27, 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.