Kavin Loftin Vs. Frieda Bosh, Et Al

DEMPEWOLF VS. CORREA Case Number: 22CV-0199626 This matter is on calendar for review regarding trial setting. The previous trial date was vacated by the Court’s order dated May 31, 2024 Order. The Court designates this matter as exempt from case disposition time standards. Both Plaintiff and Defendant have posted jury fees. The parties are ordered to appear to provide the Court with available trial dates.

Case Number: 20STCV47990 Hearing Date: July 18, 2024 Dept: 68 Dept. 68 Date: 7-18-24 Case 20STCV47990 Trial Date: N/A REOPEN DISCOVERY MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Sascha Lynch, pro per RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed/Defendant, Gerson Moreno RELIEF REQUESTED Motion to Reopen Discovery SUMMARY OF ACTION On January 2, 2019, plaintiff Sascha Lynch was involved in an automobile collision with defendant Gerson Jacton Moreno (Defendant) on the northbound 110 Freeway in Los Angeles. On December 15, 2020, Plaintiff filed a complaint against for motor vehicle negligence. On January 18, 2024, the court vacated the March 25, 2024, trial date. On February 21, 2024, the court dismissed the case at the request of Plaintiff Sascha Lynch without prejudice. The court also retained jurisdiction to make orders to enforce any and all terms of settlement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. RULING : Moot/Off-Calendar. Request for Judicial Notice: Denied. Plaintiff Sascha Lynch moves for the court to reopen discovery in order for Plaintiff to verify the accuracy of the responses to discovery from respondent, defendant Gerson Jacton Moreno aka Gerson Jacton Moreno Garcia. The entire action was dismissed on February 21, 2024. While the motion was filed after the dismissal, the court finds nothing in the motion supporting a basis for relief given the dismissal of the entire action, or even a threshold argument for an arguable enforcement of the settlement agreement. The court declines to address the extensive arguments in the motion, opposition, and reply given the lack of address of the dismissal itself under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 The motion is therefore moot and taken off-calendar. Plaintiff to provide notice.

Case Number: 23AHCV01104 Hearing Date: July 18, 2024 Dept: P [TENTATIVE] ORDER OVERRULING DEFENDANT PABLO MARTINEZS DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT I. INTRODUCTION This negligence action arises from a slip and fall incident on property located at 21 Palmetto Drive in Alhambra, California. Plaintiff Jesus Manuel Guerra (Plaintiff) alleges that Defendant Pablo Martinez (Defendant) owned the property, Defendant Palmetto Villas, Inc. (Palmetto) managed the property and Defendant Complete Landscape & Gardening Services maintained the property. Plaintiff, a resident of 21 Palmetto Drive, Unit D, alleges that on May 20, 2021, he slipped and fell while walking on a pathway at the locations entrance. Plaintiff further alleges that a puddle of water and/or accumulated algae cause this accident. On May 16, 2023, Plaintiff filed a personal injury complaint alleging causes of action for (1) general negligence as to all three Defendants and (2) premises liability as to Defendants Palmetto Villas, Inc. and Pablo Martinez. On September 27, 2023, Defendant Martinez filed a Demurrer to Plaintiffs complaint because Plaintiff only alleged that Defendant owned unit D, not the site where the slip and fall occurred. On January 17, 2024, the Court sustained Defendants demurrer with leave to amend. (1/17/24 Minute Order) On February 6, 2024, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (FAC). On March 4, 2024, Defendant Pablo Martinez (Defendant) filed the instant Demurrer to Plaintiffs FAC pursuant to CCP § 430.10, concurrently with notice and Declaration of John Fu, Esq., (Fu Decl.). On July 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendants Demurrer with the Declaration of Thomas R. Burns, Esq., (Burns Decl.) and attached exhibits. Plaintiff has not filed a reply. A hearing is scheduled for July 18, 2024. II. LEGAL STANDARD A. Demurrer Code Civ. Proc. §430.10(e) provides for a demurrer on the basis that a complaint fails to state a cause of action. A demurrer admits, provisionally for purposes of testing the pleading, all material facts properly pleaded. Tindell v. Murphy (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1239, 1247. A demurrer is treated as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not the truth of contentions, deductions or conclusions of law. A ubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 966-967. The general rule on demurrer is that the pleadings are deemed to be true, however improbable they may be. Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 Cal.App.4th 593, 604. Questions of plaintiffs ability to prove unlikely allegations are of no concern. Committee on Childrens Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp. (1983) 35 Cal.3d 197, 213-214. A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint. Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994. A plaintiffs allegations must be accepted as true for purposes of demurrer, no matter how improbable they are. Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 593, 604 ( Del E. Webb ). Allegations need not be accepted as true if they are contradicted by judicially noticeable facts. Cansino v. Bank of America (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1462, 1474. Pleadings are to be broadly construed (Code Civ. Proc. §452) and demurrers are to be overruled where the facts are sufficient to state any cause of action. Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 38. A demurrer challenges defects appearing on the face of the complaint or in judicially noticeable material but cannot be based on evidence. Speaking demurrers are not permitted. Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2023), §7.8. Code Civ. Proc. §430.10(f) provides for a demurrer where a pleading is uncertain. Demurrers for uncertainty are disfavored and are only sustained where a pleading is so incomprehensible a defendant cannot reasonably respond. A.J. Fistes v. GDL Best Contractors, Inc. (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 677, 695; Khoury v. Malys of California (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616. III. ANALYSIS A. Demurrer On September 27, 2023, Defendant filed a Demurrer to Plaintiffs complaint on the grounds that it was a sham pleading because the original complaint did not identify Defendant as the owner of the entire property. Plaintiffs original complaint states that Plaintiff is informed and believes & Defendant PABLO MARTINEZ was and is & the owner of Unit D located on the Premises. (Compl., ¶ 3, emphasis added.) On January 17, 2024, the Court sustained Defendants Demurrer to Plaintiffs complaint with leave to amend. (1/17/24 Minute Order) The operative FAC states that Plaintiff is informed and believes & Defendant PABLO MARTINEZ was and is & the owner of the Premises . (Compl., ¶ 3, emphasis added.) On February 27, 2024, Defendant and Plaintiffs counsel met and conferred on the issue of Defendants ownership interest of the premises and did not reach a resolution, necessitating the instant motion. (Fu Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. A; Motion, p. 5.) Based upon this, the Court finds that the meet and confer requirement has been satisfied. On March 4, 2024, Defendant filed another Demurrer, moving the Court to sustain the demurrer based on the argument that Plaintiffs original and amended complaints contain inconsistent factual allegations. Defendants position is that the FAC attempts to plead around the defect and therefore amounts to a sham pleading. (Motion, p. 3.) Defendant argues that when a plaintiff attempts to circumvent factual problems by pleading new inconsistent facts in an amended complaint, the plaintiff must provide explain why such a drastic change has occurred. If Plaintiff is unable to do so, the new pleading will be treated as a sham and be disregarded. ( Del E. Webh Corp. v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 Cal. App.3d 593, 604; Owens v. Kings Supermarket (1988) 198 Cal. App.3d 379, 384; and Shoemaker v. Myers (1990) 52 Cal.3d 1, 13, cited by 6 Cal. Prac. Guide, Civ. Proc. Bef-Trial, Sec. 7:48.) Plaintiff asks the Court to overrule the demurrer because the sham pleading doctrine is inapplicable when the facts change due to information obtained in discovery. (Oppn., p. 2.) Plaintiff argues that the sham pleading doctrine is inapplicable because Co-Defendant Palmetto provided new information during discovery to support Plaintiffs amended allegation that Defendant Martinez owns the entire property, including the incident location. (FAC, ¶¶ 18, 24.) Pursuant to the sham pleading doctrine, any inconsistencies with prior pleadings must be explained; if the pleader fails to do so, the court may disregard the inconsistent allegations. ( Larson v. UHS of Rancho Spring s, Inc . (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 336, 343.) Courts will not close their eyes to situations where a complaint contains allegations of fact inconsistent with attached documents, or allegations contrary to facts that are judicially noticed. ( Hoffman v. Smithwoods RV Park, LLC (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 390, 400.) Given the information obtained through discovery, the Court finds that Plaintiff has appropriately explained the change in the allegations of ownership from the original complaint to the FAC. On September 27, 2023, Plaintiff served Special Interrogatories, Set One, on Defendant Palmetto. On October 30, 2023, Palmetto timely responded to the Special Interrogatories as follows: Special Interrogatory No. 1 : IDENTIFY the PERSON who owed the PREMISES at the time of the INCIDENT. Response to Special Interrogatory No. 1: Responding Party identifies Pablo Martinez (solo_raiders@hotmail.com) as the owner of the premises where Plaintiff was a tenant. Discovery and investigation is ongoing and continuing, and Responding Party reserves the right to amend this response up to and including the time of trial. Special Interrogatory No. 2 : IDENTIFY the PERSON who leased the PREMISES at the time of the INCIDENT. Response to Special Interrogatory No. 2: Responding Party identifies Pablo Martinez (solo_raiders@hotmail.com) as the owner of the premises where Plaintiff was a tenant. Discovery and investigation is ongoing and continuing, and Responding Party reserves the right to amend this response up to and including the time of trial. Special Interrogatory No. 4 : IDENTIFY the PERSON who controlled the PREMISES at the time of the INCIDENT. Response to Special Interrogatory No. 4: Responding Party identifies Pablo Martinez (solo_raiders@hotmail.com) as the owner of the premises where Plaintiff was a tenant. Discovery and investigation is ongoing and continuing, and Responding Party reserves the right to amend this response up to and including the time of trial. Special Interrogatory No. 6 : IDENTIFY the PERSON who owned the LOCATION OF THE INCIDENT at the time of the INCIDENT. Response to Special Interrogatory No. 2: Responding Party identifies Pablo Martinez (solo_raiders@hotmail.com) as the owner of the premises where Plaintiff was a tenant. Discovery and investigation is ongoing and continuing, and Responding Party reserves the right to amend this response up to and including the time of trial. (Oppn., Exh. B, pp. 2-3.) Plaintiff did not possess this information at the time he filed his original complaint. Plaintiff received this information on October 30, 2023. After the Court sustained Defendant Martinezs demurrer to the original complaint, Plaintiff relied on this information when filing the FAC. Therefore, the inconsistent facts between the initial complaint and the FAC are sufficiently explained to bypass an application of the sham pleading doctrine. Therefore, the Court OVERRULES Defendants demurrer to the FAC. IV. ORDER Defendant Martinezs Demurrer is OVERRULED. Defendant to answer within 15 days. Counsel for Plaintiff to give notice of this order. Dated: July 18, 2024 JARED D. MOSES JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT

Case Number: 23LBCV00172 Hearing Date: July 18, 2024 Dept: S27 Defendants propounded RFAs, set one and FROGs, set two on Plaintiff on 4/04/24. Defendants propounded FROGs, set three, SROGs, set two, and RFAs, set three on Plaintiff on 4/10/24. On 5/15/24 and 5/16/24, Defendants filed motions to compel responses to the above interrogatories and to deem the above RFAs admitted, setting them for hearing on various dates. On 6/03/24, the Court rescheduled the hearing on all of the motions to 7/18/24. Defendants gave notice of the ruling the same day. To date, Plaintiff has not served responses to any of the propounded discovery. Defendants therefore seek an order compelling Plaintiff to respond, without objections, to the outstanding discovery, deeming the RFAs admitted, and requiring Plaintiff to pay sanctions. Defendants motions to compel are granted. Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses to the above-detailed interrogatories, without objections, within five days. The Court notes that time is of the essence, as the case is scheduled for trial on 8/06/24. CCP §§2030.290(a),(b). Defendants motions to deem RFAs, sets two and three, admitted are also granted. CCP §2033.280(a), (b). Sanctions are mandatory. §§2030.290(c), 2033.280(c). Defendants seek sanctions in the varying amounts in connection with each motion. Counsel bills at the rate of $210/hour. The Court awards one hour of time to prepare each of these form discovery motions. No opposition was filed and therefore no reply was necessary. The Court awards one hour to appear at the hearing on the motions, as the Court strongly encourages remote appearance. The Court therefore awards a total of six hours of attorney time at the requested rate $210/hour, or $1320 in attorneys fees. The Court also awards five filing fees of $60 each, or $300 in costs. Sanctions are sought against and imposed against Plaintiff, in pro per; he is ordered to pay sanctions to Defendants, by and through their attorney of record, in the amount of $1620, within twenty days. Defendants are ordered to give notice. Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at gdcdepts27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org . If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar . If a party submits on the tentative, the partys email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If any party does not submit on the tentative, the party should make arrangements to appear remotely at the hearing on this matter.

Case Number: 21STCV34334 Hearing Date: July 18, 2024 Dept: 32 PLEASE NOTE : Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached. If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that partys intention to submit. The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsels contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling. If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely. Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court . TENTATIVE RULING DEPT : 32 HEARING DATE : July 18, 2024 CASE NUMBER : 21STCV34334 MOTIONS : Motion to Quash Service of Summons MOVING PARTY: Specially Appearing Defendant Francisco Salas-Corona OPPOSING PARTY: None BACKGROUND On September 17, 2021, Plaintiff Gilberto Vera (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendants Francisco Salas Corona, Alfonso Del Real Montoya, Johnny Lobos, and Does 1 to 10 for injuries related to an alleged motor vehicle accident that occurred on January 31, 2021. On March 8, 2024, Plaintiff filed a proof of service of the summons and complaint on Francisco Salas-Corona. The proof of service shows the summons and complaint was personally served to Michele Roach, the Director of the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), under Vehicle Code sections 17450 and 17454. Specially Appearing Defendant Francisco Salas-Corona (Defendant) now moves to quash service of the summons and complaint, arguing service was defective and as such, the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendant. Plaintiff filed a notice of non-opposition to this motion. LEGAL STANDARD A defendant . . . may serve and file a notice of motion for one or more of the following purposes:¿ (1) To quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her. . . .¿(Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10(a).)¿The motion must be filed on or before the last day on which the defendant must plead or within any further time that the court may for good cause allow. (Id.) [C]ompliance with the statutory procedures for service of process is essential to establish personal jurisdiction. [Citation.]¿( Dill v. Berquist Construction Co . (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1444.)¿[T]he filing of a proof of service creates a rebuttable presumption that the service was proper but only if it complies with the statutory requirements regarding such proofs.¿( Id . at 1441-42.) ¿On a motion to quash service of summons, the plaintiff has the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence the prima facie facts entitling the court to assume jurisdiction, including whether service was in compliance with statutory requirements. ( Lebel v Mai (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1160.) A court may rely upon the verified declarations of the parties and other competent witnesses. ( Buchanan v. Soto (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 1353, 1362.) A court lacks jurisdiction over a party if there has not been proper service of process.¿( Ruttenberg v. Ruttenberg (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 801, 808.) By driving a car in California, any non-resident (U.S. citizen or foreign national) appoints the Director of the DMV as agent for service of process in any action arising out of an auto accident. ( Litwin v. Estate of Formela (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 607, 613 (citing Vehicle Code § 17451).) [T]he Vehicle Code provides a method whereby persons from outside California, who become involved in litigation as the result of their use of a motor vehicle on the highways of this state, may be sued here and, although they have left the state, may be effectively served with process so that in personam judgments may be rendered. ( Litwin , supra , 186 Cal.App.4th at 613.) Vehicle Code section 17454 contains that method: Service of process shall be made by leaving one copy of the summons and complaint in the hands of the director or in his office at Sacramento or by mailing either by certified or registered mail, addressee only, return receipt requested, the copy of the summons and complaint to the office of the director in Sacramento&such service shall be a sufficient service on the nonresident subject to compliance with Section 17455. Vehicle Code section 17455 requires that: A notice of service and a copy of the summons and complaint shall be forthwith sent by registered mail by the plaintiff or his attorney to the defendant. Personal service of the notice and a copy of the summons and complaint upon the defendant wherever found outside this State shall be the equivalent of service by mail. Vehicle Code section 17456 sets forth the manner of proving service: Proof of compliance with Section 17455 shall be made in the event of service by mail by affidavit of the plaintiff or his attorney showing said mailing, together with the return receipt of the United States post office bearing the signature of the defendant. The affidavit and receipt shall be appended to the original summons which shall be filed with the court from out of which the summons issued within such time as the court may allow for the return of the summons. In short, to serve a defendant through the DMV a plaintiff must both serve a copy of the summons and complaint on the DMV and mail another copy directly to the defendant. Under Section 17456, any proof of service must include a receipt signed by the defendant, indicating that the defendant has actually received the package. In compelling proof of service by a return receipt bearing the signature of [the] defendant the statute requires actual delivery to the defendant by registered mail of a copy of the notice, summons, and complaint. ( Weisfeld v. Superior Court (1952) 110 Cal.App.2d 148, 151.) DISCUSSION Defendant argues that Plaintiff has failed to show that he was a non-resident of California when the accident occurred. Additionally, he argues that the proof of service fails to show under section 17455, that notice of service was sent to Defendant by registered mail. The Court notes that the proof of service filed on March 8, 2024 fails to show that a copy of the summons and complaint was mailed to Defendant. Plaintiff does not oppose this motion and therefore fails to meet his burden to show that Defendant was a non-resident at the time of the accident and that he complied with Vehicle Code section 17455. As a result, the motion to quash is granted. CONCLUSION AND ORDER Therefore, the Court GRANTS Specially Appearing Defendant Francisco Salas-Coronas motion to quash service of summons and complaint. Defendant to provide notice and file a proof of service of such.

CV-22-005931 – RAMIREZ, CATALINA vs SUPERCUTS INC – a) Defendant Supercuts, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment - GRANTED, and unopposed; b) Defendant Supercuts Corporate Shops, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment - GRANTED, and unopposed. a)-b) Having considered the moving papers, the separate statement of undisputed material facts, and the evidence submitted in conjunction with the supporting declaration, the Court finds that Defendant, as the moving party, has met its burden of demonstrating entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the claims asserted against it herein. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(p)(2).) The burden then shifts to Plaintiff to introduce admissible evidence demonstrating the existence of a material factual dispute preventing judgment for the moving Defendant. As Plaintiff has failed to do so, Defendant is entitled to judgment herein.

On Asbestos Law and Motion Calendar for Tuesday, July 16, 2024, in Department 301, Line 6. Plaintiff's Motion for Order Granting Preference in Setting Case for Trial, and Extending Discovery cutoff is GRANTED under CCP Section 36(a). No opposition filed. 1. The trial date is November 4, 2024 at 11:15 a.m. in Department 206. a. Last day pursuant to C.C.P. section 36(f) is November 12, 2024. b. The parties shall follow the California Rules of Court, San Francisco Local Rules, and Local Rule 20. 2. The last day for hearing summary judgment/adjudication motions is October 29, 2024. a. Summary judgment/adjudication motions shall be brought on regular notice pursuant to the relevant provisions of the C.C.P., unless the parties stipulate otherwise. b. Before a party files and serves a summary judgment/adjudication motion, it must contact the clerk to make a reservation. c. The Court allows a maximum of four summary judgment/adjudication motions per day to be calendared, unless good cause is found to exceed this number. Contact the clerk to schedule a good cause hearing. 3. Time to respond to written discovery not yet served is shortened to 20 days. a. For written discovery that has already been served, responses are due within 20 days of this hearing or by the date determined by the C.C.P., whichever is earlier. b. Any issue/dispute that requires meet and confer, shall occur in person or via telephone, not by email or letter. 4. Electronic service is considered the equivalent of personal service. 5. The fact discovery cut-off date is October 18, 2024. 6. The expert discovery cut-off date is November 1, 2024. 7. All bankruptcy documents shall be turned over to defendants no later than August 16, 2024. a. If Plaintiff submits documents to bankruptcy trusts after this date, they must notify Defendants no later than five days after submission. b. The fact discovery cut-off does not apply to bankruptcy documents. 8. No later than July 30, 2024: a. Plaintiff must provide a statement to each Defendant stating the name and contact information of each lay person with knowledge of any facts supporting Plaintiff's claims as to each Defendant. b. Defendants must provide a statement stating the name and contact information of each lay person with knowledge of facts supporting Defendant's affirmative defenses. c. Any person not identified on the statements may be barred from testifying at trial or presenting a declaration on a summary judgment motion. (Tentative ruling continues in Part 2 of 2.)

TENTATIVE RULING NOTICE Tentative rulings for Law and Motion will be posted electronically by 1:30 p.m. the day before the hearing. Any party wishing to contest or argue the tentative ruling must email the court at civilcourtclerks@sjcourts.org. that they intend to appear remotely no later than 4:00 PM on the day before the scheduled hearing. The Department and Case Number must be in the header of the email. The email must include the Department, Case number, Case Name, Motion, party’s name and email, date and time of the hearing, issues they plan to argue, and that they have informed the opposing party. The party must also notify affected counsel, or unrepresented parties, that they intend to appear, no later than 4:00 PM on the day before the scheduled hearing. Unless the Court and opposing counsel have been notified, the tentative ruling shall become the ruling of the Court without oral argument. To attend the remote hearing with Judge Kronlund in Dept. 10-D: Call into (209) 992-5590, then follow the prompts and use the Bridge # and Pin # as follows: Bridge # 6940 Pin # 3782 Tentative Ruling Plaintiff's motion for Preliminary Injunction is Denied. CCP Section 527. Plaintiff's motion is untimely as he did not provide at least 16 court days' service of the motion as required. CCP Section 1005(b). Nor did Plaintiff file the Reply at least 5 court days prior to the hearing, assuming he had timely filed his motion. Id. The form of the notice of the motion to Defense was improper by way of a sentence at the bottom of an e-mail. CRC 3.1300(b). The Plaintiff appears to seek a Writ of Mandate from this Court, which is improper as this Court is of the same level, trial court level, as the two courts which issued the DVRO and the CPO against Plaintiff. Only a higher court has authority to review a trial court's Orders- not another trial court. To stay or vacate the DVRO and CPO, Plaintiff needs to seek relief at the proper Appellate Court. That would be by filing a timely Writ or Appeal, as the case may be. Even if all of the above fatal problems didn't exist, there are more problems with Plaintiff's motion. Plaintiff fails to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, as it is extremely unlikely he will prevail on the merits of his case. This is because two separate courts, Criminal and Family, have already found the facts and circumstances underlying the restraining orders to have been proven by a preponderance of the evidence. This necessarily means, Plaintiff isn't able to prevail as he can't meet his burden of proof. Additionally, Plaintiff can't prove he will suffer greater interim harm compared to the Defendants if the injunction is denied, under these circumstances where Plaintiff was charged with a criminal case against one of the Defendants, and two restraining orders in two different courts were issued against Plaintiff, based on the underlying conduct which is the basis of Plaintiff's complaint. Multiple police reports were generated with at least two different law enforcement agencies, with allegations by Defendants against Plaintiff, of which one or more resulted in criminal charges being filed and two restraining orders in two different courts being granted. This shows that the balance of harm favors Defendants in this case. The Defendants exercised their Constitutional rights and litigation rights by generating police reports and seeking redress through the courts in which they obtained valid restraining orders. Finally, Plaintiff is not being prevented from pursuing his litigation by the denial of this injunction. Barbara A. Kronlund