How to get a Temporary Restraining Order?

Useful Rulings on Application for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)

Recent Rulings on Application for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)

OLUFEMI OGUNTOLU VS NINA C MONTOYA

In opposition, Plaintiff asserts that the invoice shows charges for both filing a complaint and a TRO along with the filing process fee. Plaintiff has not produced evidence of this contention. Defendant’s second and third objections are to ex parte motions. Defendant asserts Plaintiff charges fees above those charged by the court for an ex parte motion. Defendant’s objection shifts the burden of proof to Plaintiff.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

DENEEN K AHLUWALIA VS JAGGER CHASE

The successful plaintiff may obtain a preliminary injunction containing the same provisions as a TRO that remains in effect until the property is seized by the levying officer.[3] CCP §513.010(c). The court may also issue a “turnover order” directing the defendant to transfer possession of the property to the plaintiff (See Mandatory Form CD-120). The order must notify the defendant that failure to comply may subject him or her to contempt of court. CCP §512.070.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

CITY OF COMMERCE, ET AL. VS CENTRAL BASIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, A SPECIAL DISTRICT, ET AL.

Petitioners’ counsel has excluded hours for work not directly related to litigation, work related to non-litigation strategies for obtaining the District’s compliance with the law and prudent management principles, work related to an application for a temporary restraining order that was never filed, and work performed by an attorney who left the firm that was later undertaken by another attorney who duplicated some of the first attorney’s effort. Ailin Decl., ¶6, Ex. 2.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

GOLDWATER SAG HOLDINGS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COPORATION VS YUK SIN YUEN, ET AL.

The circumstances here are different, where defendants have not failed to appear for any hearings on dispositive motions and have been actively engaged in the case, as demonstrated by the many emails attached as exhibits to both parties’ papers, but neglected to file timely responsive pleadings amidst dealing with other issues related to a TRO and preliminary injunction stipulation. (See Carrasco v.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

PNC EQUIPMENT FINANCE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS GOMEZ LANDSCAPE & TREE SERVICE, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

On September 15, 2020, the Court granted these ex parte applications in part, issuing a temporary restraining order (TRO) preventing the movement, use, or disposal of the equipment and setting the requests for the writs for hearing. II. LEGAL STANDARDS & DISCUSSION A.

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

PATRICIA GOMEZ, ET AL. VS ADELA IRIMES, ET AL.

On August 4, 2020, the court issued a temporary restraining order preventing defendant from evicting plaintiffs while the action was ongoing. The court now considers plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction.

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ALSTON V. MASSICOTTE

The terms of the preliminary injunction are to be identical to the terms contained in the temporary restraining order issued on 9-11-20 under ROA No. 13 with the following modification: The preliminary injunction will dissolve on 12-4-20 unless there is evidence that Defendant has actually engaged in the conduct that is the subject of the preliminary injunction since the issuance of the temporary restraining order. (In re Butler (2018) 4 Cal.5th 728, 738 and 741.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

LYNN THOMPSON VS THE DIPLOMAT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Course of Proceedings On September 9, 2020, the court granted Thompson’s ex parte application for temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and order to show cause re: preliminary injunction (“OSC”). The TRO required the Caregivers to comply with the Association’s guidelines for residents. Thompson’s counsel indicated that the Summons, Complaint, and moving papers had previously been served. The court directed Thompson to electronically serve the TRO/OSC. B.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

ESSAYLI V. KASSIR

The 11-19-19 Minute Order reflects that the defendants asked the court for a temporary restraining order, but it does not reflect a request for consolidation. (11-19-19 Minute Order.) The court accepts Defendant’s declaration as to his request for consolidation on 11-19-19. Defendant’s declaration is sufficient to demonstrate that he recognized the court’s authority to proceed, and constituted a general appearance on 11-19-19.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

AMERICAN CREDIT ACCEPTANCE, LLC V. WEMHANER

Code of Civil Procedure section 515.010 states, “(a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), the court shall not issue a temporary restraining order or a writ of possession until the plaintiff has filed an undertaking with the court. The undertaking shall provide that the sureties are bound to the defendant for the return of the property to the defendant, if return of the property is ordered, and for the payment to the defendant of any sum recovered against the plaintiff.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

FIDEL M. LARA, JR., M.D. VS COMMUNITY FAMILY CARE MEDICAL GROUP IPA, A PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL CORPORATION, ET AL.

On August 26, 2020, Kaplan met and conferred with Steinburg about Lara’s contemplated application/motion for a TRO and preliminary injunction. Kaplan Decl., ¶12, Ex. 9. Steinberg stated that CFC would not initiate the Termination Notice. Id. Steinberg presented Lara with two options: (1) he could continue seeing his patients through CFC on a fee-for-service basis indefinitely; or (2) he could stop seeing those patients. Id.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

WILBOR VS ASHLAND CAPITAL FUND 2 LLC

Shortly after he filed the complaint, plaintiff approached the court for a TRO. ROA 9-12. Following a hearing, the court issued a TRO precluding the recordation of a NOS, and set the matter for hearing on a preliminary injunction. ROA 9, 15. The ex parte papers were deemed the moving papers; a briefing schedule was set. ROA 15. The hearing on the preliminary injunction was set for Sept. 11, but the parties agreed to continue it to today. ROA 21.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

AMAVARA INC VS DUBA

The first was plaintiff's February 13, 2020 ex parte application for a TRO and OSC re preliminary injunction. This ended up going by way of a stipulated order enjoining certain conduct. ROA 15-17. In early March, defendants cross-complained against Amavara and its principal, alleging wage and hour violations and many other claims. ROA 18.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

ACCREDITED SURETY AND CASUALTY COMPANY, INC., A CORPORATION VS EDWARD URBAN, ET AL.

All Defendants having now answered the Complaint, in default, or dismissed from the action, Plaintiff brings the instant Motion to Deposit by Stakeholder, for Discharge of Stakeholder, for Attorney’s Fees, and for Temporary Restraining Order (the “Motion”). To date, no opposition has been filed.

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

THE MORTGAGE LAW FIRM, PLC VS ALL CLAIMANTS TO SURPLUS PROCEEDS AFTER THE TRUSTEE'S SALE OF THE REAL PROPERTY

In fact, the Kennedy briefing indicates that Kennedy had applied to the other court for a TRO and OSC re preliminary injunction to stop the foreclosure sale from proceeding in the first place, but that such an application was denied by the court, and the foreclosure obviously proceeded and generated the funds now at issue. [Fernald Decl., para. 14].

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

MARCUS R. ELLINGTON, SR. VS STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction Plaintiff moves for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction with respect to denial of care for serious medical need and denial of Kosher food. (Motion, pgs. 4-6.) Plaintiff filed the underlying complaint in the instant action on November 25, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

STEINER V. CEDILLO

The court may also grant a continuance on its own motion. ¶ (2) If the court grants a continuance, any temporary restraining order that has been granted shall remain in effect until the end of the continued hearing, unless otherwise ordered by the court. In granting a continuance, the court may modify or terminate a temporary restraining order.” (Code of Civil Procedure, § 527.6(p)(1).) The court is uncertain that it has authority to issue an order granting a TRO that expires in five years.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

DAMONE DANIEL, ET AL. VS CITY OF BURBANK, ET AL.

Further, a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction are not remedies that can be sought in a judgment because they are provisional remedies issued to maintain the status quo pending a determination on the merits of the action. The demurrers to the 29th and 30th causes of action for injunctive relief are sustained without leave to amend. C. Motion to Strike In light of the ruling on the demurrer, the motion to strike is taken off-calendar. DISCUSSION RE CITY’S DEMURRER A.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

RE: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SET BY VANDY

Per 2-25-20 minute order, the TRO was dissolved and no bond was required; the 3- 19-2020 hearing was to be a status hearing for trial setting. PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: 1. Appearances 2. Verified declaration by petitioner to state names, current addresses and relationships of all persons entitled to receive notice. LR 7.112 3.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Judge

    Fenstermacher

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

PRIME HEALTHCARE PARADISE VALLEY LLC VS WEST

Plaintiff Prime Healthcare Paradise Valley, LLC's Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction is denied. Preliminary injunctive relief is appropriate only if two interrelated factors are present: (1) the plaintiff is likely to prevail on the merits at trial; and (2) the interim harm the plaintiff is likely to sustain in the absence of an injunction is greater than the harm the defendant will probably suffer if an injunction is issued. (Vo v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ARICA LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS YUKMI, INC., ET AL.

Course of Proceedings On September 9, 2020, the court granted Arica’s ex parte application for temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and order to show cause re: preliminary injunction (“OSC”). The court directed Arica to personally serve Yukmi with the Summons, Complaint, moving papers, and the order by September 10, 2020 and to file the proof of service by September 14, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

KEN Y. PARK, ET AL. VS KWANG TAE KIM, ET AL.

Course of Proceedings On September 2, 2020, the court granted Plaintiffs’ ex parte application for temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and order to show cause re: preliminary injunction (“OSC”). The court noted that the TRO/OSC was based on legal theories of (1) material variance in the amount owed, and (2) failure to provide payoff breakdown per Civil Code section 2943.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

PRIME HEALTHCARE PARADISE VALLEY LLC VS WEST

Plaintiff Prime Healthcare Paradise Valley, LLC's Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction is denied. Preliminary injunctive relief is appropriate only if two interrelated factors are present: (1) the plaintiff is likely to prevail on the merits at trial; and (2) the interim harm the plaintiff is likely to sustain in the absence of an injunction is greater than the harm the defendant will probably suffer if an injunction is issued. (Vo v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

YI HAN VS QINGYUN JIANG

On January 15, 2020, the Court denied Plaintiff’s ex parte application for a temporary restraining order and setting of an order to show cause re: preliminary injunction and appointment of receiver. In denying the ex parte application, the Court noted that “plaintiff did not give notice to defendant of the ex parte application. In addition, the March 3, 2016, e-mail states that no agreement was in effect. Further, plaintiff has not presented evidence that he will prevail on the merits of his claims.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

WILLIAM SZYMCZAK V. NATURAL HEALING CENTER, LLC

The Requests to Deny the Motions as Improper Motions for Reconsideration are Denied On August 20, 2020, the Court considered Plaintiffs’ ex parte request for (1) an order appointing a receiver; (2) a temporary restraining order (“TRO”); and (3) an order to show cause (“OSC”) why a preliminary injunction should not be issued.

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 132     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.