What is a Petition for Injunctive Relief?

Useful Rulings on Petition for Injunctive Relief

Recent Rulings on Petition for Injunctive Relief

PRICE VS THE CITY OF ANAHEIM

Indeed, irreparable injury is often referred to as the “threshold requirement” in cases seeking preliminary injunctive relief. See Costa Mesa City Employees’ Ass’n v. City of Costa Mesa 209 Cal. App. 4th 298, 306. “The showing of potential harm that a plaintiff must make in support of a request for preliminary injunctive relief may be expressed in various linguistic formulations, such as the inadequacy of legal remedies or the threat of irreparable injury (compare Civ. Code, § 3422 with Code Civ.

  • Hearing

ALAMEDA SQUARE OWNER LLC VS THE LOS ANGELES WHOLESALE PRODUCE MARKET, LLC

Factual Background This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief. The Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) alleges as follows.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

DAVID BABAIE, ET AL. VS TRANS WEST INVESTIGATIONS, INC., A CORPORATION, ET AL.

Fourth Cause of Action: Injunctive Relief The fourth cause of action seeks injunctive relief under Penal Code section 637.2, subdivision (b). Penal Code section 637.2, subdivision (b) provides that “any person may . . . bring an action to enjoin and restrain any violation of this chapter, and may in the same action seek damages as provided by subdivision (a).”

  • Hearing

RAELENE M. RAMOS ET AL. V. LINDA J. BOWLBY, ET AL.

When determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction, the court considers two interrelated questions: (1) the likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits, and (2) the relative balance of harms that is likely to result from the granting or denial of interim injunctive relief. (White v. Davis (2003) 30 Cal.4th 528, 554; see also Robbins v. Sup. Ct. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 199, 206; Code of Civ. Proc., § 526.)

  • Hearing

CHRIS BORKOVEC VS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON

Additionally, while Plaintiffs claim it is prejudicial to delay litigating their entitlement to injunctive relief in the form of an order requiring SCE to comply with Public Resources Code §§ 4292 and 4293, SCE is already required to comply with those statutes, and any failure to comply might be more readily addressed through other, more expeditious proceedings as opposed to a jury trial in this case.

  • Hearing

GOLDEN ESTATE HOLDINGS, LLC VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY, ET AL.

Under California law, injunctive relief is considered “a remedy, not a cause of action.” (Mesa Shopping Center-East, LLC v. O Hill (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 890, 901.) Further, the true cause of action is actually the underlying tort or wrongful act. (See 5 Witkin, Cal. Proc. 5th Plead §§ 823–825 (2008).) As the court sustained the first and second causes of action, the court finds there is no underlying claim to support Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

RAZUKI INVESTMENTS LLC VS ABLE INVESTMENT SERVICES

"[T]he question whether a preliminary injunction should be granted involves two interrelated factors: (1) the likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits, and (2) the relative balance of harms that is likely to result from the granting or denial of interim injunctive relief." White v. Davis (2003) 30 Cal.4th 528, 554. Plaintiffs Razuki Investments, LLC and Dream World Enterprises, Inc. have not demonstrated that they are likely to prevail on the merits.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

GREGORY LUCAS VS CITY OF POMONA

The Petition Petitioner Lucas commenced this proceeding on December 24, 2019, alleging a cause of action for violation of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and seeking the remedy of injunctive relief. The verified Petition alleges in pertinent part as follows. On October 9, 2019, at a public hearing, the City’s Planning Commission considered a recommendation to City Council to approve the Ordinance.

  • Hearing

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

The Petition Petitioner Lucas commenced this proceeding on December 24, 2019, alleging a cause of action for violation of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and seeking the remedy of injunctive relief. The verified Petition alleges in pertinent part as follows. On October 9, 2019, at a public hearing, the City’s Planning Commission considered a recommendation to City Council to approve the Ordinance.

  • Hearing

FINANCIAL SERVICES VEHICLE TRUST, BY AND THROUGH ITS SERVICER BMW FINANCIAL SERVICES NA, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS ARMEN MELIKYAN, ET AL.

On April 4, 2019, and August 22, 2019, Plaintiff filed a complaint then verified first amended complaint on for Breach of Contract, Common Count, Claim and Delivery, Conversion, Fraud, Quiet Title, Declaratory Relief, and Injunctive Relief. On September 4, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Stay as to individual defendant, Armen Melikyan. A Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Petition was filed on August 25, 2020. RULING: Granted.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

ELLIOTT VS MALAND

In particular, the fourth cause of action requests injunctive relief, but "injunctive relief lies only to prevent threatened injury and has no application to wrongs that have been completed." Huntingdon Life Sciences, Inc. v. Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA, Inc. (2005) 129 Cal. App. 4th 1228, 1266. At this point, there is no useful purpose to the dispute.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

ELLIOTT VS MALAND

In particular, the fourth cause of action requests injunctive relief, but "injunctive relief lies only to prevent threatened injury and has no application to wrongs that have been completed." Huntingdon Life Sciences, Inc. v. Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA, Inc. (2005) 129 Cal. App. 4th 1228, 1266. At this point, there is no useful purpose to the dispute.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

LION EYE FARMS INC ET AL VS COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA

In general, “if the plaintiff may be fully compensated by the payment of damages in the event [it] prevails, then preliminary injunctive relief should be denied.” Tahoe Keys Property Owners’ Association v. State Water Resources Control Board (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1459, 1471. Here, plaintiffs have an adequate remedy in the form of money damages should they ultimately prevail on their claims. Based on the foregoing, the court will deny plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction.

  • Hearing

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

EDVIN MEHRABIAN VS EDUARDO JIMENEZ, ET AL.

Plaintiff filed his Complaint on December 10, 2018, alleging two causes of action for (1) Declaratory Relief, and (2) Injunctive Relief.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

VASQUEZ VS. RESIDENCE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

Unlike a potential expansion of Defendants’ monetary exposure, injunctive relief as to 97,000 policyholders is not meaningfully different from injunctive relief as to 43 policyholders. Because the Court intends to certify the Claimant Subclass for injunctive relief, and in light of this procedural issue, the Court can see no reason at this time to certify a class that includes all 97,000 policyholders.

  • Hearing

MARY CRUZ CRESPO VS NORA FLORES, ET AL.

., Employers HR, LLC, and Nora Flores for (1) employment discrimination on the basis of actual and perceived disability and medical condition; (2) harassment on the basis of actual and perceived disability; (3) failure to accommodate disability; (4) failure to engage in the interactive process; (5) retaliation for exercising rights under FEHA; (6) failure to prevent retaliation in violation of FEHA; (7) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (8) declaratory relief; and (9) injunctive relief.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

KRAFVE VS. KARFVE

Eighth COA for Interference with Exercise of Civil Rights—Violation of Civil Code section 52.1 Civil Code section 52.1, also known as the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, authorizes an action for damages, injunctive relief, or other appropriate equitable relief where a person, whether or not acting under color of law, interferes or attempts to interfere by threat, intimidation, or coercion, with the exercise or enjoyment by any individual of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States or of the

  • Hearing

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, EX REL. CITY ATTORNEY OF THE CITY OF SAN JOSE, ET

Procedural Plaintiffs initiated this action in March 2020 and filed the FAC on July 22, 2020, asserting the following causes of action: (1) for injunctive relief and civil penalties under the San Jose Municipal Code (public nuisance); (2) for injunctive relief, attorney’s fees and costs under Code of Civil Procedure § 731 and Civil Code §§ 3479, 3480 and 3496 (public nuisance); and (3) for injunctive relief and civil penalties for unlawful business practices under Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200.

  • Hearing

RAMON MCNEAL VS RAYMOND L. JENKINS, AN INDIVIDUAL

If the defendant files an application for the stay and early evaluation of a construction related claim, the court must (1) immediately order a 90-day stay of the proceedings with respect to the construction-related accessibility claim (absent any temporary injunctive relief obtained by the plaintiff); (2) schedule a mandatory early evaluation conference no sooner than 50 days after the request is filed, but in no event later than 70 days after the order is issued; and (3) order the parties, and any other person

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

FRANK ZIMMERMAN COLLECTIVE VS CITY OF VISTA

Injunctive Relief as a Cause of Action The parties argue over whether a separate cause of action for injunctive relief is appropriate or whether injunctive relief is a remedy only rather than an independent claim for relief. While there is some legal authority to support both positions, the Court concludes, in context, that the demurrer to Plaintiff's cause of action for Injunctive Relief is not well taken. This is the tentative ruling for an appearance hearing on Friday, November 20, 2020 at 1:30 p.m.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

THE TERRACE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT MUTUAL BENEFIT CORPORATION VS SAMBIZ AMINI

Article 9, Section 9.13 of the CC&Rs specifically states that a remedy at law is inadequate for a breach of the CC&Rs and that injunctive relief is the appropriate remedy for a violation of the CC&Rs. (See Cameron Decl. Exh. 1.) Moreover, Plaintiff submits evidence that it and its members could be irreparably harmed if Defendant and his son continued to violate community rules and regulations during the pendency of this action.

  • Hearing

RICHARD DIXON VS SCOTT D MCGEE, ET AL.

procedural history Rojo filed the Complaint on August 14, 2020, alleging eleven causes of action: Breach of fiduciary duties Unjust enrichment and constructive trust Conspiracy Injunctive relief – appointment of receiver, TRO Unfair practices Dissolution and winding up of accounting Elder abuse False pretenses Discrimination, harassment, retaliation Unfair practices Dissolution and winding up of accounting On May 29, 2020, Rojo filed the FAC, alleging nine causes of action: Appointment of receiver

  • Hearing

PROTECT OUR COMMUNITY NOW VS. POWAY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

PUSD correctly asserts the District did not discuss the requirements for injunctive relief. However, the District's evidence supports an injunction is premature, and that the District has complied with the law and the waiver. Thus, PUSD has not established that it will prevail on its claims. PUSD specifically excluded the alleged Brown Act violations in its reply. (Reply, 2:26-3:2.) PUSD has not shown that it will suffer prejudice at this time.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

OSCAR MARTINEZ, ET AL. VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

In deciding whether or not to grant a preliminary injunction, the court looks to two factors, including “(1) the likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits, and (2) the relative balance of harms that is likely to result from the granting or denial of interim injunctive relief.” (White v. Davis (2003) 30 Cal.4th 528, 553-54.) The factors are interrelated, with a greater showing on one permitting a lesser showing on the other. (Dodge, Warren & Peters Ins. Services, Inc. v.

  • Hearing

PROTECT OUR COMMUNITY NOW VS. POWAY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

PUSD correctly asserts the District did not discuss the requirements for injunctive relief. However, the District's evidence supports an injunction is premature, and that the District has complied with the law and the waiver. Thus, PUSD has not established that it will prevail on its claims. PUSD specifically excluded the alleged Brown Act violations in its reply. (Reply, 2:26-3:2.) PUSD has not shown that it will suffer prejudice at this time.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 287     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.