Motion No. 1:
Plaintiff’s (World of Dance Tour, Inc.) Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Motion), filed on 3-5-20 under ROA No. 33, is DENIED.
“In deciding whether to issue a preliminary injunction, a trial court must evaluate two interrelated factors: (i) the likelihood that the party seeking the injunction will ultimately prevail on the merits of his [or her] claim, and (ii) the balance of harm presented, i.e., the comparative consequences of the issuance and nonissuance of the injunction. [Citations.]” (Common Cause v. Board of Supervisors (1989) 49 Cal.3d 432, 441-442; footnote 7 omitted.) “A trial court deciding whether to issue a preliminary injunction weighs two interrelated factors—the likelihood the moving party will prevail on the merits at trial and the relative balance of the interim harms that are likely to result from the granting or denial of preliminary injunctive relief. [Citations.]” (County of Kern v. T.C.E.F., Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 301, 315.)
“These two showin
Hearing Date
June 23, 2020
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Motion No. 1:
Plaintiff’s (World of Dance Tour, Inc.) Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Motion), filed on 3-5-20 under ROA No. 33, is DENIED.
“In deciding whether to issue a preliminary injunction, a trial court must evaluate two interrelated factors: (i) the likelihood that the party seeking the injunction will ultimately prevail on the merits of his [or her] claim, and (ii) the balance of harm presented, i.e., the comparative consequences of the issuance and nonissuance of the injunction. [Citations.]” (Common Cause v. Board of Supervisors (1989) 49 Cal.3d 432, 441-442; footnote 7 omitted.) “A trial court deciding whether to issue a preliminary injunction weighs two interrelated factors—the likelihood the moving party will prevail on the merits at trial and the relative balance of the interim harms that are likely to result from the granting or denial of preliminary injunctive relief. [Citations.]” (County of Kern v. T.C.E.F., Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 301, 315.)
“These two showin