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

126-150 of 10000 results

T D VS FISCHER

Preliminary Matters Plaintiff's unopposed request for judicial notice of the pleadings filed in this Court and the U.S. District Court, Southern District of California is granted. Evid. Code § 452(d). The Court takes judicial notice of the existence of the filings, and not the truth of the matters stated in them. Background Plaintiff alleges former Sheriff's Deputy Richard Fischer sexually assaulted her on December 31, 2016, and on multiple occasions after that. Complt. ¶¶ 23-25.

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

ALMA SALAZAR, ET AL. VS FRONTIER AUTO SALES, ET AL.

.: 19STCV20382 Motion: Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, Approval of PAGA Settlement, Class Certification, etc. Moving Party: Plaintiff Alma Salazar, on behalf of herself and all persons similarly situated Responding Party: Unopposed Tentative Ruling: The Motion is granted. On July 1, 2020, Plaintiff Alma Salazar, on behalf of herself and all persons similarly situated, filed the operative Third Amended Complaint for (1) unfair competition in violation of Bus. & Prof.

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

LAMDEN CORBY VS LAMDEN

Preliminary Matters The parties' unopposed requests for judicial notice are granted. Background Following two rounds of demurrers and motions to strike, plaintiffs Carol and Randolph Corby filed their second amended complaint alleging: (1) breach of written contract; (2) breach of duty to provide information (by Carol against William E. Lamden ("William") and Does 1-20); (3) breach of fiduciary duties; and (4) promissory estoppel. ROA # 94.

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

LAMDEN CORBY VS LAMDEN

Preliminary Matters The parties' unopposed requests for judicial notice are granted. Background Following two rounds of demurrers and motions to strike, plaintiffs Carol and Randolph Corby filed their second amended complaint alleging: (1) breach of written contract; (2) breach of duty to provide information (by Carol against William E. Lamden ("William") and Does 1-20); (3) breach of fiduciary duties; and (4) promissory estoppel. ROA # 94.

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

JUAN SAAVEDRA ET AL VS CITY OF GLENDALE

Petitioners were entitled to a judgment that the 2012-15 fiscal year GFTs were made from the GWP Surplus Fund to the General Reserve Fund in violation of Charter Section 22, and an injunction barring such future transfers. Dec., p. 30. Petitioners claim that that the City must return the GFT to the GWP Surplus Fund and to restore laid off GWP employees were denied. Dec., p. 30.

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

CITRUS OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLGY VS CITRUS VALLEY HEALTH

Unless there is a showing that the challenged action is being continued or repeated, an injunction should be denied.” (Gafcon, Inc. v. Ponsor & Associates (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1388, 1403, fn. 6 [citations omitted].) “Injunctive relief will be denied if, at the time of the order of judgment, there is no reasonable probability that the past acts complained of will recur.” (California Service Station etc. Assn. v. Union Oil Co. (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 44, 57.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

BARON V. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

As Plaintiff has made no such preliminary or foundational showing here, the Motion as to these interrogatories is therefore GRANTED. Regents’ request for sanctions is GRANTED IN PART. Although sanctions are warranted here under C.C.P. § 2030.300(d), the Court finds that they should be imposed in the reduced sum of $1,375 for this Motion.

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

NADINE BASS VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

If that preliminary analysis reveals a trivial defect, the court considers evidence of any additional factors such as the weather, lighting, and visibility conditions at the time of the accident, the existence of debris or obstructions, and plaintiff’s knowledge of the area.” (Stathoulis v. City of Montebello (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 559, 567-568.) Defendant has proffered a declaration from Mark Blanchette, Ph.D. (“Blanchette”), who is a biomechanics expert.

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

BARON V. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

As Plaintiff has made no such preliminary or foundational showing here, the Motion as to these interrogatories is therefore GRANTED. Regents’ request for sanctions is GRANTED IN PART. Although sanctions are warranted here under C.C.P. § 2030.300(d), the Court finds that they should be imposed in the reduced sum of $1,375 for this Motion.

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

ROBERT GARBER VS LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION -PARKING BIOLATION BAUREAU

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CONSTANTIN VS. CHILDS

Order to Show Cause re: Preliminary Injunction **CONTINUED TO 8/20/20 PER STIP***

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

JIMBO'S NATURAL FAMILY INC VS HORTON PLAZA LLC

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by plaintiff Jimbo's Natural Family, Inc. is DENIED. The trial court is required to weigh the harm to the plaintiff which would probably result from denying the preliminary injunction, as against the harm to defendant which would probably result from its granting. And a necessary consideration in this balancing process is whether there is a reasonable probability that the plaintiff will succeed on the merits. (U. C. Nuclear Weapons Labs Conversion Project v.

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

JANE DOE VS SKYLER LUCCI, ET AL.

PRELIMINARY COMMENTS: As indicated below, the Court is sustaining, with leave to amend, the demurrer based on on CCP §430.10(b) and §430.10(g). However, the Court wonders if it was worth the candle for the demurrer basedon these sections of the CCP to have been filed. On the one hand, when the parties met-and-conferred regarding the demurrer, the Court does not understand why Plaintiff would not have agreed to amend to indicate whether the agreement was oral or written.

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

H VS FISCHER

Preliminary Matters Plaintiff's unopposed request for judicial notice of the pleadings filed in this Court and the U.S. District Court, Southern District of California is granted. Evid. Code § 452(d). The Court takes judicial notice of the existence of the filings, and not the truth of the matters stated in them. Background Plaintiff alleges former Sheriff's Deputy Richard Fischer sexually assaulted her on August 20, 2017. Complt. ¶¶ 13-15.

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

LAMDEN CORBY VS LAMDEN

Preliminary Matters The parties' unopposed requests for judicial notice are granted. Background Following two rounds of demurrers and motions to strike, plaintiffs Carol and Randolph Corby filed their second amended complaint alleging: (1) breach of written contract; (2) breach of duty to provide information (by Carol against William E. Lamden ("William") and Does 1-20); (3) breach of fiduciary duties; and (4) promissory estoppel. ROA # 94.

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

DANIEL SANCHEZ ET AL VS HOLLIDAY TRUCKING COMPANY INC ET AL

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that its previous ruling on the motion to strike punitive damages is largely irrelevant to the instant motion. The previous ruling involved a different standard, examining whether Plaintiffs stated sufficient facts assumed to be true to support a prayer for punitive damages. Instead, in the instant motion, the Court now examines whether Movant Defendants introduce sufficient evidence to shift the initial burden to Plaintiffs.

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

H VS FISCHER

Preliminary Matters Plaintiff's unopposed request for judicial notice of the pleadings filed in this Court and the U.S. District Court, Southern District of California is granted. Evid. Code § 452(d). The Court takes judicial notice of the existence of the filings, and not the truth of the matters stated in them. Background Plaintiff alleges former Sheriff's Deputy Richard Fischer sexually assaulted her on August 20, 2017. Complt. ¶¶ 13-15.

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

JIMBO'S NATURAL FAMILY INC VS HORTON PLAZA LLC

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by plaintiff Jimbo's Natural Family, Inc. is DENIED. The trial court is required to weigh the harm to the plaintiff which would probably result from denying the preliminary injunction, as against the harm to defendant which would probably result from its granting. And a necessary consideration in this balancing process is whether there is a reasonable probability that the plaintiff will succeed on the merits. (U. C. Nuclear Weapons Labs Conversion Project v.

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

JIMBO'S NATURAL FAMILY INC VS HORTON PLAZA LLC

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by plaintiff Jimbo's Natural Family, Inc. is DENIED. The trial court is required to weigh the harm to the plaintiff which would probably result from denying the preliminary injunction, as against the harm to defendant which would probably result from its granting. And a necessary consideration in this balancing process is whether there is a reasonable probability that the plaintiff will succeed on the merits. (U. C. Nuclear Weapons Labs Conversion Project v.

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

CHANG KOK AHN ET AL VS HOLLYWOOD ENTERPRISES INC ET AL

It is incumbent upon the party asserting attorney-client privilege to prove the preliminary fact that a privilege exists. (State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 625, 639.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

JANICE HERNANDEZ VS NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT

Preliminary Matters The Court has not considered plaintiff's surreply, as the Code does not provide for a response to a Reply and the Court did not grant leave to file one. The City's request for judicial notice of plaintiff's complaint and amendment to complaint is unnecessary as they are the pleadings in this action.

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

PLANNET CONSULTING, INC. V. MCNARY

But the other causes of action—which deal with a License Agreement entered into as part of the settlement agreement, alleged trademark infringement, and a request for a preliminary injunction—are different. The complaint alleges interference with the trademark which was obtained long before the settlement agreement and misrepresentation as to the status of PlanNet.

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

ELLIOT HAAS VS LITTLE LOVE RESCUE, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

On July 2, 2020, the court denied Plaintiff’s ex parte applications for a TRO and OSC re: preliminary injunction. Also on July 2, 2020, the court granted Plaintiff’s ex parte application for an OSC re: contempt as to Defendants Littleton and Little Love Rescue. The court set the OSC for August 6, 2020, and indicated that the court intended to arraign Defendants on that date on the contempt charge. The court ordered any opposition to the OSC re: contempt to be filed and served by July 23, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

BUCUR VS PHARMACA INTEGRATIVE PHARMACY INC [EFILE]

Plaintiff Matthew Bucur, an individual on behalf of himself and all persons similarly situated, brings this Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. The Court has reviewed to the evidence and information presented. The Court's only concern with the motion is the amount of the proposed Class Representative Service Payment. The Court is not inclined to approve a Service Payment of $10,000 under the circumstances presented.

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

MUELLER V. DYCK-O’NEAL, INC.

In determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction, the trial court considers two interrelated factors: (1) the likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits at trial and (2) the interim harm that the plaintiff is likely to sustain if the injunction is denied as compared to the harm that the defendant is likely to suffer if the court grants a preliminary injunction. (Abrams v. St. John's Hospital & Health Center (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 628, 635–36; Smith v.

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 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.