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

176-200 of 10000 results

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

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

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

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

STARS AND BARS, LLCX V WESTPORT CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Continued the Court’s Motion to 08/24/2020 at 1:30 p.m. this department.

  • Hearing

    Aug 01, 2020

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

SMITH V. THE SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION (SEIU), LOCAL 521

(Complaint, ¶ 16.) 1 The Complaint, filed on February 19, 2016, sets forth the following causes of action: 2 (1) Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; (2) Failure to Provide Off-Duty Meal Periods; (3) Failure to 3 pay Overtime Wages: Meal Periods; (4) Failure to Furnish Accurate Wage Statements; 4 (5) Waiting Time Penalties; (6) Unfair Competition; (8) 1 Failure to Provide Breaks or 5 Compensate for Break Time; (9) Preliminary and Permanent Injunction; and (10) Declaratory 6 Relief. 7 On November 30, 2018, the court

  • Hearing

    Jul 31, 2020

DEWAYNE CASSEL V. GOOGLE LLC, ET AL.

Plaintiff’s allegations are summarized in more detail in the Court’s March 9th, 2020 order addressing his motion for a temporary injunction and Google’s demurrer to the operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). Before the Court are plaintiff’s (1) demurrer to Google’s answer to the SAC and (2) motion to lift the stay of proceedings on certain claims, styled his fourteenth cause of action. Google opposes both motions. I.

  • Hearing

    Jul 31, 2020

LEWIS VS. CENLAR AGENCY

In the meantime, neither side has filed any briefs or other papers in opposition to or support of a preliminary injunction. The Court takes that as indicating that the parties have probably resolved the dispute on their own. It therefore takes the motion for preliminary injunction off calendar. The Court will inquire further at the CMC now calendared for August 24.

  • Hearing

    Jul 31, 2020

SALVADOR JUNIOR COSSIO VS JAVIER MALESPIN

Welch administered a preliminary alcohol screening test to Mr. Malespin at the scene of the accident and the test reported Mr. Malespin’s blood alcohol level to be .072 and .082 per cent. At the scene of the accident, Officer Welch detected a strong odor of alcohol coming from Mr. Malespin and observed that he had bloodshot eyes and slurred speech. Based on his observations and training in the field, there was no doubt in his mind that Mr.

  • Hearing

    Jul 31, 2020

GARY LEFKOWITZ VS KHALED A. TAWNSEY, ET AL.

Plaintiff’s Cross-Complaint As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s cross-complaint filed on December 6, 2019 is an unauthorized and improper pleading. “The court may, upon a motion made pursuant to Section 435, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper: … (b) Strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of the state, a court rule, or an order of the court.” (CCP §436.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 31, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

TRINH VS. GOLDEN STATE OVERNIGHT DELIVERY SERVICE, INC.

Furthermore, per the preliminary approval declaration in Kostyuk (RJN, Ex. B, at paragraph 18), counsel valued the claim based on failure to separately pay for rest breaks. The exact conduct alleged in the present Trinh case was considered when settling Kostyuk. As to being released, the settlement defines the “Released Claims” as “all claims and remedies . . . that were pled or could have been pled based on the factual allegations in the Litigation.” (RJN, Ex. B, at Sub.-Ex. 1, paragraph 26.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 31, 2020

EDWIN H BURNS, JR VS AMERICA'S WHOLESALE LENDER

The Court also informed the parties that before proceeding with the quiet title action, the Court would require a preliminary title report to assure that all adverse parties had been served. On January 29, 2020, the Court held an Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal for Failure to Appear and Prosecute. The Court noted that Plaintiff failed to appear to the OSC and several other hearings, and that no action had been taken in the case since March 26, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Jul 31, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  « 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.