A petition for injunctive relief may request either a permanent or preliminary injunction. Regardless of the form sought, “an injunction is not itself a cause of action; rather, a cause of action must exist on which injunctive relief may be granted.” (Camp v. Board of Supervisors, 123 Cal.App.3d 334, 356 (1981).)

A permanent injunction is “an equitable remedy for certain torts or wrongful acts of a defendant where a damage remedy is inadequate.” (Art Movers, Inc. v. Ni West, Inc., Cal.App.4th 640, 646 (1992).) A permanent injunction is a final judgment on the merits after the “plaintiff has prevailed on a cause of action for tort or other wrongful act against the defendant and that equitable relief is appropriate.” (Id.). Permanent injunctive relief can only be obtained in equitable actions. (Camp, 123 Cal.App.3d at 356.)

“An order for a preliminary injunction is based on a showing that it is desirable to maintain the status quo pending a determination of the merits of the litigation.” (Continental Baking Co. v. Katz, 68 Cal.2d 512 (1968).) Preliminary injunctions “may be granted at any time before judgment upon a verified complaint.” (White v. Davis, 30 Cal.4th 528, 554 (2003).) If a preliminary injunction is granted it “does not amount to an adjudication of the ultimate rights in controversy. Its [only] purpose is to preserve the status quo...” (Socialist Workers etc. Committee v. Brown, 53 Cal.App.3d 879, 890-891 (1975).) “The scope of available preliminary relief is necessarily limited by the scope of the relief likely to be obtained at trial on the merits.” (Common Cause v. Board of Supervisors, 49 Cal.3d 432, 442 (1989).) Unlike a permanent injunction, “provisional injunctive relief is available in both equitable actions and legal actions for damages.” (Camp, 123 Cal.App.3d at 356.)

Preliminary injunctions, when granted, require the defendant or another specified person to take, or refrain from taking, a specified action when necessary to protect a legal right being pursued by the plaintiff. (Cal. Civ. Proc. § 525.) “The party seeking this kind of provisional injunctive relief must show that the relief sought in the lawsuit depends, in whole or in partly, on restraining the commission or continuance of an act that would cause waste or irreparable injury.” (Cal. Civ. Proc. § 526(a)(3).)

When considering whether to grant a preliminary injunction, the court will consider two elements: “(1) the likelihood that the moving party will prevail on the merits and (2) the interim harm to the respective parties if an injunction is granted or denied. The moving party must prevail on both factors to obtain an injunction.” (Pittsburg Unified School Dist. V. S.J. Amoroso Construction Co., Inc., 232 Cal.App.4th 808, 813-814 (2014).)

“The goal of any test to be used in deciding whether a preliminary injunction should issue is to minimize the harm that an erroneous interim decision may cause.” (White, 30 Cal.4th at 554.) However, the trial court may abuse its discretion by granting a preliminary injunction “when there is no likelihood that the movants will prevail on the merits of their claims for relief.” (Doe v. Wilson, 57 Cal.App.4th 296, 303-304 (1997).) There must be at least some showing of potential entitlement to such relief. (Id.). Finally, if a party is guilty of “unclean hands,” it cannot receive injunctive relief.” (Germo Manufacturing Co. of Missouri v. McClellan, 107 Cal.App.532, 541 (1930).)

“The more likely it is that plaintiffs will ultimately prevail, the less severe must be the harm that they allege will occur if the injunction does not issue.” (Right Site Coalition v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist., 160 Cal.App.4th 336, 338-39 (2008).) Further, “if the party seeking the injunction can make a sufficiently strong showing of likelihood of success on the merits, the trial court has discretion to issue the injunction notwithstanding that party’s inability to show that the balance of harms tips in his favor.” (Id.)

“A preliminary injunction may be granted in the following cases:

1. When it appears by the complaint that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief demanded, and the relief, or any part thereof, consists in restraining the commission or continuance of the act complained of, either for a limited period or perpetually.
2. When it appears by the complaint or affidavits that the commission or continuance of some act during the litigation would produce waste, or great or irreparable injury, to a party to the action.
3. When it appears, during the litigation, that a party to the action is doing, or threatens, or is about to do, or is procuring or suffering to be done, some act in violation of the rights of another party to the action respecting the subject of the action, and tending to render the judgment ineffectual.
4. When pecuniary compensation would not afford adequate relief.
5. Where it would be extremely difficult to ascertain the amount of compensation which would afford adequate relief.
6. Where the restraint is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of judicial proceedings.
7. Where the obligation arises from a trust.”

(Cal. Civ. Proc. § 526.)