TENTATIVE RULING: Petitioner's Motion for Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED. Kim Investments, LLC's opposition was filed late; therefore, it was not considered. On January 16, 2020, Judge Medel ordered "Kim Investments, LLC's intervention and opposition papers shall be filed on or before 5:00 p.m. on January 30, 2020 and shall be served electronically via One Legal at the time of filing." (ROA #18.) Kim Investments did not file an opposition until June 8, 2020. Kim Investments, LLC argues that because Judge Medel was challenged via a 170.6 challenge all dates in Judge Medel's department were vacated. However, Judge Medel's order was not "vacated" but still remained in effect.
"[T]rial courts should evaluate two interrelated factors when deciding whether or not to issue a preliminary injunction. The first is the likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits at trial. The second is the interim harm that the plaintiff is likely to sustain if the injunction were denied as compa
Hearing Date
June 18, 2020
Category
Civil - Unlimited
Type
Misc Complaints - Other
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
TENTATIVE RULING: Petitioner's Motion for Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED. Kim Investments, LLC's opposition was filed late; therefore, it was not considered. On January 16, 2020, Judge Medel ordered "Kim Investments, LLC's intervention and opposition papers shall be filed on or before 5:00 p.m. on January 30, 2020 and shall be served electronically via One Legal at the time of filing." (ROA #18.) Kim Investments did not file an opposition until June 8, 2020. Kim Investments, LLC argues that because Judge Medel was challenged via a 170.6 challenge all dates in Judge Medel's department were vacated. However, Judge Medel's order was not "vacated" but still remained in effect.
"[T]rial courts should evaluate two interrelated factors when deciding whether or not to issue a preliminary injunction. The first is the likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits at trial. The second is the interim harm that the plaintiff is likely to sustain if the injunction were denied as compa