MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
CVSW2306224 M. VS KOMROSKY
INJUNCTION
Tentative Ruling:
Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Defendants argue that the Teacher Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue this claim. This
argument does not have merit. “Standing concerns a specific party’s interest in the outcome of a
lawsuit.” (Weatherford v. City of San Rafael (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1241, 1247.) “To have standing, a
party must be beneficially interested in the controversy; that is, he or she must have ‘some special
interest to be served or some particular right to be preserved or protected over and above the
interest held in common with the public at large.’” (Holmes v. California Nat. Guard (2001) 90
Cal.App.4th 297, 315.) “This interest must be concrete and actual, and must not be conjectural or
hypothetical.” (Iglesia Evangelica Latina, Inc. v. S. Pac. Latin Am. Dist. Of the Assemblies of God
(2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 420, 445; Associated Builders
Hearing Date
February 23, 2024
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
CVSW2306224 M. VS KOMROSKY
INJUNCTION
Tentative Ruling:
Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Defendants argue that the Teacher Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue this claim. This
argument does not have merit. “Standing concerns a specific party’s interest in the outcome of a
lawsuit.” (Weatherford v. City of San Rafael (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1241, 1247.) “To have standing, a
party must be beneficially interested in the controversy; that is, he or she must have ‘some special
interest to be served or some particular right to be preserved or protected over and above the
interest held in common with the public at large.’” (Holmes v. California Nat. Guard (2001) 90
Cal.App.4th 297, 315.) “This interest must be concrete and actual, and must not be conjectural or
hypothetical.” (Iglesia Evangelica Latina, Inc. v. S. Pac. Latin Am. Dist. Of the Assemblies of God
(2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 420, 445; Associated Builders