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

201-225 of 10000 results

(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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE FIZZ FACILITY, LTD. VS ELEVATED FILMS, INC., ET AL.

PRELIMINARY COMMENTS: This demurrer is unopposed. The Court finds such silence to be troubling. If plaintiff believed that the demurrer should be overruled, it should have filed an opposition. The Court also notes that Defendant has not filed a Case Management Statement for the Case Management Conference being held today. The Court is concerned that both counsel act professionally in the future.

  • Hearing

    Jul 27, 2020

PATERRA VS HANSEN

Absent a good reason to the contrary, the Court intends to dissolve this order at the hearing of this Motion. The Court finds that the proposed order submitted by Plaintiff and Judgment Creditor Natalie Paterra ("Plaintiff") - Exh. "3" to the declaration of Attorney Kessler - is reasonable. The Court will sign this proposed order at the hearing of this Motion.

  • Hearing

    Jul 27, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

RUBIO VS PURITY COSMETICS

The Court rules on plaintiff Carmen Rubio's (Plaintiff) motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement and conditional certification of a Plaintiff Class as follows: The Court grants preliminary approval of the class action settlement as presented and approves of the proposed forms of notice. In addition, the class shall be conditionally certified for purposes of settlement. Hearing on final approval shall be set at the hearing. IT IS SO ORDERED.

  • Hearing

    Jul 27, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

PATERRA VS HANSEN

Absent a good reason to the contrary, the Court intends to dissolve this order at the hearing of this Motion. The Court finds that the proposed order submitted by Plaintiff and Judgment Creditor Natalie Paterra ("Plaintiff") - Exh. "3" to the declaration of Attorney Kessler - is reasonable. The Court will sign this proposed order at the hearing of this Motion.

  • Hearing

    Jul 27, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

VICHIT TILAKAMONKUL VS VICHAI TILAKAMONKUL ET AL

22, 2020; (2) Defendants and Cross-Complainants Vichai Tilakamonkul, Virut Tilakamonkul, Sumeth Tilakamonkul, Narlong Tilakamonkul [identified as Narlong Tilakamonkun repeatedly in the papers, but the papers also say all individual parties have the same last name], T-Team Investment, LLC, Siriratn Tilakamonkul, and Defendant and Plaintiff-in-Intervention Royal Thai Cuisine II STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS: This is a dispute involving a partnership, in which Plaintiffs seek to quiet title, dissolve

  • Hearing

    Jul 27, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

CASTANEDA ENGINEERING, INC. V. FAGERMAN TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

Le (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 352, 367 [sufficient evidence of ongoing basis for permanent injunction justified denial of renewed motion to dissolve the injunction.]; Film Packages, Inc. v. Brandywine Film Productions, Ltd. (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 824, 829-830 [in renewed motion for attachment, subsequent depositions provided “many subtle nuances and subjective impressions” beyond what was set forth in the initial declarations].)

  • Hearing

    Jul 27, 2020

MIAO ZHANG, ET AL. VS AMERICAN EVERGLOW REGIONAL CENTER, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

Constructive Trust and Injunction For the court to allow a constructive trust remedy in a pleading, Plaintiffs must allege: (1) Wrongful act (underlying claim incorporated into the cause of action); (2) specific, identifiable property or property interest, or excuse for inability to describe it; (3) plaintiff’s right to the property; and (4) defendant has title thereto. (Stansfield v. Starkey (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 59, 76.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 27, 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.