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

TAFT VS. VENTURA COUNTY MEDICAL CENTER

The court's tentative ruling is as follows: To the extent that Plaintiff Foster Taft's 1st Amended Complaint might be construed as asserting a separate cause of action for injunctive relief against Farmers requiring it to modify its medical records authorization form, Taft has abandoned any such claim in his Opposition Brief. (See Opposition Brief, 1:26-27 ["TAFT removes all demands for and expectations of FARMERS authorization forms and imposition of 'minimum necessary' standards."].)

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants for: (1) violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act; and (2) injunctive relief. The Current Discovery Motions On July 29, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for an order compelling Defendant Gold Star Properties, LLC (“GSP”) to serve responses to his: (1) form interrogatories (set one); (2) special interrogatories (set one); and (3) request for production of documents (set one), which he served on GSP on January 30, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

JONATHAN RAMIREZ VS JUD ASHOURI

The Complaint states seven causes for: 1) rescission; 2) breach of written contract; 3) breach of implied covenant of good faith & fair dealing; 4) negligent misrepresentation; 5) fraud in the inducement; 6) fraud in the execution; and 7) injunctive relief. On December 16, 2019, Ashouri and AYF filed a cross-complaint against Ramirez for: 1) breach of contract; 2) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; 3) fraud; and 4) injunctive relief.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

PETERS VS CITY OF BEAUMONT CALIFORNIA

relief (against City); and (19) declaratory relief (against City).

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

REBECCA CASTILLO VS TASTEA HOLDINGS LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

Plaintiff sought the following injunctive relief: “2. A preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendant from further violations of the UCRA, Civil Code § 51 et seq. with respect to ‘gotastea.com.’ 3.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

CHAN VS. TRANQUILITY, INC.

Second, plaintiff has failed to allege that she is entitled to the single UCL remedy she now seeks: injunctive relief. (See, Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17203 and § 17204; Zhang v. Superior Court (2013) 57 Cal.4th 364, 376 [no claim for compensatory or punitive damages can be recovered in a UCL action]; Korea Supply Co. v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

WEEKLY VS. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE

Code § 2924.12(a)(1) (“a borrower may bring an action for injunctive relief to enjoin a material violation of Section 2923.55, 2923.6, 2923.7, 2924.9, 2924.10, 2924.11, or 2924.17.”) (emphasis added). Plaintiff has failed to allege that any technical violations of this section were “material.” Plaintiff has failed to allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action for violation of Civil Code § 2924.9.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

CITY OF COSTA MESA V. NATIONAL THERAPEUTIC SERVICES, INC.

Injunctive relief is a remedy, not a cause of action. [Citations.] A cause of action must exist before a court may grant a request for injunctive relief.” (Allen v. City of Sacramento (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 41, 65, 183 Cal.Rptr.3d 654; accord, City of South Pasadena v. Department of Transportation (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1280, 1293, 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 113 [“ ‘A permanent injunction is merely a remedy for a proven cause of action.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

LEV INVESTMENTS, LLC VS RUVIN FEYGENBERG, ET AL.

(Trustee), Mike Kemel (Kemel), and Roes 1 through 50, alleging claims for: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of fiduciary duty; (3) concealment; (4) indemnity; (5) declaratory relief; (6) quiet title; (7) cancellation of instruments; (8) wrongful foreclosure; and (9) declaratory and injunctive relief. This matter is related to case number 20STCV03696, Leizerovitz v. Lisitsa. A stay of proceedings as to Plaintiff was issued on June 1, 2020 due to Plaintiff’s filing for bankruptcy.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

GOITOM TEKLETSION VS ARAM BEDOYAN

Injunctive relief is a remedy, not a cause of action.” Guessous v. Chrome Hearts, LLC (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 1177, 1187. Therefore, the demurrer to the second cause of action is sustained with 20 days leave to amend. Leave to amend is provided in order to allow Plaintiff to allege an actual cause of action that supports the remedy of injunctive relief.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

JOHN BRECKENRIDGE, ET AL. VS PARK WELLINGTON OWNERS' ASSOCIATION

The FAC asserts causes of action for: Breach of Contract (Injunctive Relief); Violation of the Federal Fair Housing Amendments (42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq.); Violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code § 12900, et seq.); and Violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code §§ 51 & 52, subd. (a)). On May 31, 2019, the Court sustained Defendant’s demurrer to the first and fourth causes of action without leave to amend.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

PHILLIP BAIZ VS. CITY OF SACRAMENTO

. ^ It was originally filed as a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, and Baiz immediately filed a motion for a preliminary injunction prohibiting the City from taking any action to collect the penalty pending final resolution ofthe case.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

PHILLIP BAIZ VS. CITY OF SACRAMENTO

., ¶ 34.) 1 As noted, an explanation may have to wait until the hearing on the merits. 2 It was originally filed as a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, and Baiz immediately filed a motion for a preliminary injunction prohibiting the City from taking any action to collect the penalty pending final resolution of the case.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

KOTHARI VS. WAVE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS GROUP

“Although remedies under the [UCL] are limited to injunctive relief and restitution, the law’s scope is ‘sweeping.’” (Cel–Tech Commc’ns, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Tel. Co. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 163, 180.) Moreover, each prong of the UCL provides a separate and distinct theory of liability. (South Bay Chevrolet v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 861.) Here, Plaintiff alleges violation of the UCL’s unlawfulness prong.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

BUENA PARK SUCCESSOR AGENCY VS. BA HOTEL & RESORT, LLC

The first cause of action is captioned as one for both declaratory and injunctive relief. Cardenas argues at some length that injunctive relief is not a cause of action. Whatever the merits of this argument, it cannot entirely dispose of a cause of action seeking both declaratory and injunctive relief. It is therefore not a basis for demurrer. (See PH II, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1680, 1682 [“A demurrer does not lie to a portion of a cause of action.”].)

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

SEED BEAUTY, LLC, ET AL. VS COTY, INC., ET AL.

.; (2) breach of contract; (3) intentional interference with contractual relations; and (4) injunctive relief. This matter is related to case number 20VECV00684, Seed Beauty, et al. v. KKW Beauty., et al.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

ZAKIR SARANG VS FOX RENT A CAR, INC., ET AL.

Similarly, the injunctive relief that Plaintiff seeks is not intended to benefit members of the general public. The injunctive relief sought even specifies evidentiary presumptions and inferences in favor of Plaintiff. (Complaint prayer ¶ 19.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

EVA MAEDER VS METRO INFINITI, INC., ET AL.

Metro’s Motion to Strike Metro moves to strike the following from the Complaint: Punitive Damages, Injunctive Relief, Treble Damages, Civil and Statutory Penalties, Attorneys’ Fees, Lost Earnings or Profits, Special or Emotional Distress Damages, an Order for Access to the Accident Report, Disgorgement, Loss of Use of Money and Investment Opportunities, and Prejudgment Interest.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

LORI SAMMIS VS BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS, INC.

.); (5) that the business reason for excluding trade secret and non-compete claims from the EDR Plan is to assure that Moving Defendant would have access to provisional injunctive relief for these types of claims (Id.); and (6) that at the time of the creation of the EDR Plan and its amendments, it was unclear whether provisional injunctive relief would be precluded by Section 3 of the FAA and many states did not provide clarity with respect to the right to provisional injunctive relief when the underlying claims

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MHJ GROUP INC ET AL VS JI LI ET AL

Plaintiffs seek leave to file the SAC to: (1) add one cause of action for false promise/fraudulent inducement against Defendants Ji Li and AA Sunrise; and (2) update the complaint to explain which plaintiffs remain in the action, add allegations regarding injunctive relief that was granted in 2019, add allegations regarding misappropriations by Defendants, and make other minor revisions and corrections. Margolis Decl. ¶ 17.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

WAHLSTROM VS GLORIA

Plaintiff argues his action is also brought under Section 91003, and his Amended Complaint does plead for injunctive relief. Specifically, Plaintiff requests that the court enjoin Defendants from "using any money from Gloria's Assembly 2020 committee, directly or indirectly, to support his campaign for the office of Mayor of the City of San Diego in 2020." (Amd. Compl. at 8:14-16.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Enforcement

PROTECT THE SANTA MONICA COAST VS SUNSHINE ENTERPRISES, LP

Plaintiff also seeks injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants from undertaking any construction-related activities on the Shore Hotel until a CDP is issued. Again, however, A CDP has issued, such that there is no basis for injunctive relief. Lastly, Plaintiff concedes its prayer for penalties has been mooted.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

PAULA DOROTHY THOMAS VS MARCIA DALEY

But higher courts have specifically rejected this approach as applied to requests for injunctive relief. In Evans v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 272     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.