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

151-175 of 10000 results

CHARMIE RUFFY V. ISLAND HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, INC., ET AL.

Class members are not required to submit a claim to receive their payments, with the exception of the FLSA class (as discussed in the Court’s order granting preliminary approval). Should any putative class members choose to opt out of the class, the settlement provides that their portion of the net settlement will revert to defendants.

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2020

VENCLOSE INC., ET AL. V. COVIDIEN LP, ET AL. (LEAD CASE) [CONSOLIDATED WITH CASE NO. 18CV327382]

As a result of 27 a preliminary injunction against Esch in the Massachusetts action, Esch is no longer Venclose’s 28 CEO and is not involved in the business. (Id. at ¶ 83.) Defendants alleged in the Massachusetts 1 action that Esch used Defendants’ confidential information to develop the Venclose product. (Id. 2 at ¶ 58.) 3 On December 28, 2016, Venclose filed a declaratory judgment suit in the U.S. District 4 Court, Northern District of California, against Defendants. (SAC, ¶ 84.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2020

ZARAGOZA-SALCIDO VS. CC SHERIFF

Other Preliminary Procedural Nits Both counsel also engage in some minor nitpicking on procedural points, verging on the unprofessional. Suffice it to say that (1) sufficient notice of the hearing date was given; (2) the County obviously was not prejudiced by a day’s delay in service of the opposition; and (3) the Court simply disregards the inappropriate attempt to cite other trial-court decisions. Both counsel are expected to act more professionally in the future.

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2020

LAWLESS VS. ZABRONSKY

HEARING ON OSC RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SET BY PLAINTIFF * TENTATIVE RULING: * This was continued by stipulation to September 4.

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2020

SCHNITZER FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP VS EVALYN H. FORSTER, ET AL.

First Cause of Action for “Quiet Title and Accounting” As a preliminary matter, the court construes accounting to be a cause of action separate from quiet title and therefore addresses it separately in the next section. Defendant demurs to plaintiff’s quiet title cause of action on the grounds that exhibit A to the FAC contradicts the allegations which support plaintiff’s quiet title claim and the FAC does not meet the pleading requirements set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 761.020.

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

MAFI NGAUE VS ABM AVIATION, INC.

To resolve the determination of the preliminary fact in the instant proceedings, the court will conduct a Evidence Code Section 402 hearing, limited to the issue of the admissibility of Exhibit A, the preliminary facts of its authenticity and Declarant’s personal knowledge thereof. The instant motion is continued pending outcome of the Evidence Code Section 402 hearing. Dated: ____________________________ Gregory Alarcon Superior Court Judge

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ANDRES RAMIREZ VS CITY OF PASADENA

The fifth cause of action incorporates previous allegations, and alleges that if the components of the ifre sprinkler system that malfunctioned are components of a unit, the only way to prevent further damage to their units from defendant Yeritsyan’s conduct is to obtain an injunction compelling him to comply with the Association’s CC&Rs and perform the necessary repairs resulting from the water intrusion. [Complaint, paras. 67, 68].

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2020

HOME FROM HOME HAYNES, LLC, ET AL. VS GREEN MOVEMENT BUILDERS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Any issues regarding the value of the allegedly damaged property are not addressed in a motion for preliminary injunction. The court must order the posting of a bond.

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2020

SMARTMED, INC. V. FIRSTCHOICE MEDICAL GROUP, INC.

“Section 3439.07, subdivision (a) sets forth creditors' remedies, which include avoidance of a transfer, attachment, and the equitable remedies of injunction and receivership as well as ‘[a]ny other relief the circumstances may require.’ A transfer is not voidable against a person ‘who took in good faith and for a reasonably equivalent value or against any subsequent transferee ....’” (Filip, supra, 129 Cal.App.4th at p. 830, internal citations omitted.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

CITY OF MONROVIA VS PAULINE WHITE, ET AL

Finally, the Defendant requests other remedies, including an order vacating a preliminary injunction and ordering the return of all sanctions she has paid. The Defendant identifies no basis to vacate the preliminary injunction or to order the return of all monetary sanctions she has paid. The Defendant’s argument that the Court incorrectly awarded monetary sanctions to the Plaintiff lacks any merit because the Court of Appeal has already considered and rejected her appeal of the orders.

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2020

BROCK VS GOLDEN RAIN FOUNDATION

Plaintiffs Troy Gregory Brock and Anne Walshe's Motion for Approval of Class and Representative Action Settlement The hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement is CONTINUED to August 28, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. in Department CX104 to permit the parties to respond to the following items of concern. Any supplemental briefing shall be filed on or before August 19, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2020

SEAFLOOR SYSTEMS, INC. V. TAMPLIN

Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff filed an action against defendant asserting causes of action for misappropriation of trade secrets and unfair competition. The complaint also seeks issuance of a TRO, preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction.

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2020

OS PACIFIC, LLC, A FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS T-C TRIO APARTMENTS, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

$40.00 for “Records Search Document Fee – Verified Complaint for Damages, Declaratory Relief and Injunction Relief filed in Delaware Action (6/10/19)” - Even if the Court took judicial notice and admitted the document into evidence at trial (7/13/20 Martin Decl. Re: Mtn. to Tax Costs ¶ 36), the Court finds the procurement of this document to constitute an investigation expense in preparing the case for trial not recoverable under CCP § 1033.5(b)(2).

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

MALONE VS ORANGE COURIER, INC.

Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement The court has reviewed the supplemental materials submitted by plaintiff and finds they address the identified concerns. Accordingly, the motion for preliminary approval is granted. The Notice submitted by plaintiff in connection with the motion shall be given to the class. The motion for final approval will be heard on November 20, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in Department CX101.

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2020

RICHARD I. HAYDEN, JR., ET AL. VS JACK L. TSENG, ET AL.

. ¶ 11), not the fourth cause of action seeking an injunction (see FAC Compl. ¶ 20). The motion as to Issue 5 is GRANTED. With respect to Issues 6 and 7, defendants argue plaintiffs may not recover for the cracking of the driveway because the defect is trivial. Defendants’ invocation of the trivial defect doctrine is inapposite.

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

SATTERLEE V. SMIRL

A preliminary injunction may be granted upon a verified complaint or upon affidavits which show that sufficient grounds exist for the issuance of such an injunction. (Code of Civil Procedure, § 527(a).) In deciding whether to issue a preliminary injunction, two factors must be weighed: the likelihood of the moving party ultimately prevailing on the merits and the relative interim harm to the parties from the issuance of a preliminary injunction. (Butt v. State of California (1992) 4 Cal.4th 668, 677-678.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2020

LOUISE HOLLAND VS DANA CARL DENTZEL ET AL

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that while Defendants move to seal the entire court file, Defendants have indicated that the court file consists of a complaint, a motion to strike, an amended complaint, and a motion to compel production of documents. (Motion, p. 6:18-20.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2020

GOLDEN J GROUP, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL. VS JIANHUA LI, ET AL.

If no bond is posted on or before 4:00 p.m. on August 7, 2020, the injunction will dissolve automatically. Defendants’ Evidentiary Objections to Declarations and Exhibits Submitted by Plaintiffs for Their Motion for Preliminary Injunction are OVERRULED.

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

SHIRIN KAMANI VS AUDI OF AMERICA, INC., ET AL.

As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff’s counsel concedes that certain time entries should be reduced or struck entirely. (Reply-Decl. of Yashar ¶26.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2020

EDUARD GASPARYAN VS. DANIEL GREEN ET. AL.

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions in the opposition is DENIED. 1.Introduction Defendant Daniel Green (“Defendant”) moves for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff Eduard Gasparyan (“Plaintiff”) and Steven Tamer, Plaintiff’s Counsel, in the amount of $39,384.56. 2.Procedural Issues Defendant requests judicial notice of the declaration of Heather Schmitt, which was submitted on October 18, 2018 in conjunction with Defendant’s “ex parte application to dissolve the TRO.”

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2020

PIANA VS LOANDEPOT.COM,LLC

Motion for preliminary Approval of Class Settlement The court has reviewed the supplemental materials submitted by plaintiff and defendant and finds they address the identified concerns. Accordingly, the motion for preliminary approval is granted. The Notice submitted by plaintiff in connection with the motion shall be given to the class. The motion for final approval will be heard on November 20, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in Department CX101.

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2020

IRENE GARDEA VS MARC CUBAS, ET AL.

“Generally, ‘the privilege-claimant “has the initial burden of proving the preliminary facts to show the privilege applies.”’ [Citation.]. Once the claimant establishes the preliminary facts, it is presumed that the matter sought to be disclosed was a communication made in confidence in the course of the lawyer-client . . . relationship. [Citation.] At that point, the burden of proof shifts to the party opposing the privilege claim.” (Lopez v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

IN THE MATTER OF: GINA R., ET AL.

“While what is ‘highly offensive to a reasonable person’ suggests a standard upon which a jury would properly be instructed, there is a preliminary determination of ‘offensiveness’ which must be made by the court in discerning the existence of a cause of action for intrusion.” (Miller v. National Broadcasting Co. (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1463, 1483.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MARTINEZ VS. SSC NEWPORT BEACH OPERATING CO. LP

Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement is granted EXCEPT THAT the court will approve the Amended Notice of Settlement to the Class ONLY IF plaintiff further amends Section V to change the beginning of its second paragraph from “If you object to the proposed Settlement Agreement, you MUST take the following steps:” to “If you object to the proposed Settlement Agreement in writing rather than orally at the hearing, you MUST take the following steps:”.

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2020

SILVER LAKE SPINE INSTITUTE LLC VS SHEILA BARBARINO ET AL

As a preliminary matter, the motion was not untimely; given the July 24, 2020 hearing date, the deadline for email service was June 29, 2020, which is the date Defendants electronically served the motion. (C.C.P. §§1010.6, 1013.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  « 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.