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

    Sep 29, 2030

JOSE AGUILERA VS 5 STAR DELIVERY INC

On August 1, 2018, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Defendants 5 Star Delivery, Inc. (“5 Star Delivery”), Zaragoza, LAH, Rosalba Patricia Hinojosa (“RPH”) and Does 1-40 for: Breach of Written Contract Money Lent Fraud Declaratory Relief and Injunctive Relief On October 26, 2018, Zaragoza’s, LAH’s, 5 Star Delivery’s and RPH’s defaults were entered. A Case Management Conference and an Order to Show Cause Re: Default Judgment are set for September 24, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

CITRUS OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLGY VS CITRUS VALLEY HEALTH

., Issues Nos. 37 and 38) “A UCL claim must be based on the existence of harm supporting injunctive relief or restitution.” (Esparza v. Safeway, Inc. (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 42, 53.) “Injunctive relief is appropriate only when there is a threat of continuing misconduct.” (Madrid v. Perot Systems Corp. (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 440, 463.) “Ordinarily, injunctive relief is available to prevent threatened injury and is not a remedy designed to right completed wrongs.

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Under the UCL, prevailing plaintiffs “are generally limited to injunctive relief and restitution.” (Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 163, 179). Disgorgement is available in a UCL action only to the extent that it constitutes restitution; e.g., the UCL Plaintiff must have an ownership interest in the profits which it seeks to disgorge. (Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1134, 1145.) Plaintiff has not alleged any such facts.

  • Hearing

    Jul 20, 2020

MELODY CHACKER VS SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, AN ARIZONA CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

.), alleging: (1) intentional misrepresentation; (2) violation of California Civil Code section 2923.5; (3) negligent misrepresentation; (4) violation of California Civil Code section 2924.17; (5) quiet title; and (6) declaratory and injunctive relief. On December 9, 2019, Plaintiff filed a substitution of attorney. Defendants SPS, U.S. Bank N.A., and NDSC (collectively, Defendants) now move for Plaintiff to be declared a vexatious litigant.

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

BENJAMIN F. POCO, ET AL. VS WORLD SAVINGS BANK, FSB, ET AL.

Relief On April 16, 2020, Bank’s default was entered.

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

SAMUEL BLUMBERG VS KOB REMODELING, INC.

Issue No.3: Prayer for Statutory Damages and Injunctive Relief While Moving Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s prayer for statutory damages and injunctive relief is improper, neither Moving Defendant’s moving nor reply papers cite to any legal authority to specifically support that contention. The Court therefore finds Moving Defendant’s argument on this point has been conceded due to the lack of cited legal authority supporting such argument. (Heglin v. F.C.B.A. Market (1945) 70 Cal.App.2d 803, 806.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

SACRAMENTO HOMELESS UNION VS. CITY OF SACRAMENTO

Nature of Proceedings: PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Following is the court’s tentative ruling on the petition for writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

ADAM HOLT V. BLUE BOTTLE COFFEE, INC., ET AL.

The complaint in this action prays for injunctive relief, restitution to the class of “the balance of all of Defendant’s gift cards that have a balance of less than $10.00,” and any additional restitution or disgorgement that may be appropriate under the UCL.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

PRESERVATION OF BENEFIT PLAN RETIREES ASSOCIATION, ET AL. V. CITY OF SAN JOSE, ET AL.

Request for Injunctive Relief (CCP §§525, 526, & 526(a)) 1 V. REQUESTS FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 2 A.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

ANDREW M. EGBE VS SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., ET AL.

Plaintiff asserted a new litany of claims: (1) negligence, (2) negligent misrepresentation, (3) fraud, (4) fraud, (5) cancellation of instrument, (6) void or cancel notice of default, (7) breach of contract – promissory estoppel, (8) breach of contract, (9) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (10) injunctive relief, (11) concealment, and (12) constructive fraud. (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VS LANCE JAY ROBBINS PALOMA PARTNERSHIP, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ET AL.

., and Lance Jay Robbins (collectively, Defendants), seeking abatement of nuisance at 15 East Paloma, and declaratory and injunctive relief. Plaintiff now moves for a preliminary injunction. While this Court has granted LJRPP’s motion for a change of venue, the Court will take up the preliminary injunction motion, given the time-sensitive nature of such a motion.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

ADOLPH VS UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC.

Bouaphakeo (2016) 136 S.Ct. 1036, 1043); (2) No part of any recovery under the FLSA goes to the government (29 USC § 216(b)); (3) Under FLSA, employees can recover backpay, injunctive relief, etc. Id. (4) The FLSA does not require a pre-litigation demand on the agency/employer nor any of the other devices designed to keep the agency apprised of the private action. See also Correia v. NB Baker Electric, Inc. (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 602, 609. As explained in Correia, a PAGA claim belongs to the government.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

CLEM VS. HAWLEY

Balancing of Harm Plaintiffs argue that they will suffer irreparable harm if the preliminary injunction is not issued. “ ‘Irreparable harm’ is a cornerstone of the availability of. . . injunctive relief. . . In the context of injunctions, insolvency or the inability to otherwise pay money damages is a classic type of irreparable harm.” California Retail Portfolio Fund GmbH & Co. KG v. Hopkins Real Estate Group (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 849, 857.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA V. ASCARIE, ET AL.

The County filed the instant Complaint on October 17, 2019, seeking injunctive relief to abate the violations (which are alleged to constitute public nuisances) and to recover damages for unpaid fines and the significant public resources expended on this matter. B.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

ART HERNANDEZ, ET AL. VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, A MUNICIPAL ENTITY, ET AL.

(16) all documents related to citizen complaints of false charges during routine stops from 1991 to the present: these are sought based on their relevance to the requested injunctive relief and consent decree and Plaintiffs’ civil rights causes of action. (17) all documents relating to citizen complaints regarding planted evidence from 2010 to 2020: same as category (16). (18) all documents relating to citizen complaints regarding excessive force from 2010 to 2020: same as category (16).

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

CARR V. RODRIGUEZ

The Complaint and First Amended Complaint are framed in tort, for conversion, intentional infliction of emotional distress, Civil RICO, and a remedy of constructive trust and injunctive relief which are not really substantive causes of action in any event, see Camp v. Board of Supervisors, 123 Cal.App.3d 334, 356 (1981); PCO, Inc. v. Christensen, Miller, Fink, Jacobs, Glaser, Weil & Shapiro, LLP (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 384, 398.) It had to be shown how the causes of action sued upon support the remedy.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

FIONA DEARING, ET AL. VS PENTAGON FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, ET AL.

Preliminary injunctive relief requires the use of competent evidence to create a sufficient factual showing on the grounds for relief. (See, e.g., ReadyLink Healthcare v. Cotton (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1016; Ancora-Citronelle Corp. v. Green (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 146, 150.) The burden of proof is on the plaintiff as moving party. (O’Connell v. Superior Court (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1452, 1481.) A plaintiff seeking injunctive relief must show the absence of an adequate damages remedy at law. (Code Civ.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

ROSEMARY WOODS VS RAZ INVESTMENTS,INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

[To the extent Plaintiff is able to make an offer of proof as to how her pleadings for which she could seek injunctive relief as a remedy can be cured via amendment, the Court would thereafter permit Plaintiff leave to amend injunction as a remedy.] Slander of Title (11th COA) The elements of a cause of action for slander of title are “(1) a publication, (2) which is without privilege or justification, (3) which is false, and (4) which causes direct and immediate pecuniary loss.” (Manhattan Loft, LLC v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

DELORIS FARMER VS SCANDINAVIAN COACHCRAFT LLC ET AL

Discussion Plaintiff seeks to add a cause of action for a violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), seeking both injunctive relief and damages. Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, a party who wishes to amend a pleading before trial and after the time for permissible amendment has expired must follow certain specific procedural requirements.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

SALEM VS LEONNE

"[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.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

MALDONADO VS OFFICE OF THE INDEPENDENT ADMINISTRATOR

As an initial matter, claims for restraining orders and injunctive relief are not causes of action subject to a demurrer. They are merely remedies for a proven cause of action. Injunctive relief may not issue if the underlying cause of action is not established. City of South Pasadena v. Department of Transportation (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1280, 1293. Declaratory relief is available where there is an actual controversy relating to the legal rights and duties of the respective parties. CCP §1060.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Contract - Other

SALEM VS LEONNE

"[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.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ELMAR PEREZ VS WB SIMI VALLEY CDJR, LLC, ET AL.

Another possible basis for concluding that the injunctive relief claim should remain with the Court, rather than go to arbitration, would be the continued applicability of the Broughton-Cruz rule, discussed above, which necessarily reserves for the Court the right to resolve issues of injunctive relief.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ADRIAN RISKIN VS HISTORIC CORE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT

HCBID, and other BIDs have other remedies against Riskin, including declaratory and injunctive relief against his abuse. Riskin is entitled to an attorney’s fee award without apportionment. E. Conclusion Riskin’s motion for attorney’s fees is granted in the sum of $39,720, plus costs of $1,099.25.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 255     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.