What is a Motion to Dissolve Preliminary Injunction?

“[A] preliminary injunction is an order that is sought by a plaintiff prior to a full adjudication of the merits of its claim.” (White v. Davis (2003) 30 Cal.4th 528, 554.) It requires a person to refrain from a particular act; it may be granted by the court in which the action is brought, or by a judge thereof; and when granted by a judge, it may be enforced as an order of the court. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 525; Comfort v. Comfort, (1941) 17 Cal.2d 736, 741.)

“[A]n order granting or denying a preliminary injunction does not amount to an adjudication of the ultimate rights in controversy. Its purpose is to preserve the status quo until the merits of the action can be determined.” (Socialist Workers etc. Committee v. Brown (1975) 53 Cal.App.3d 879, 890-91.) The status quo has been defined to mean the last actual peaceable, uncontested status which preceded the pending controversy. (14859 Moorpark Homeowner’s Assn. v. VRT Corp. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1396. 1402.)

Legal Standard

In any action, the court may on notice modify or dissolve an injunction or temporary restraining order upon a showing that there has been a material change in the facts upon which the injunction or temporary restraining order was granted, that the law upon which the injunction or temporary restraining order was granted has changed, or that the ends of justice would be served by the modification or dissolution of the injunction or temporary restraining order. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 533; Luckett v. Panos (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 77, 85.)

Burden of Proof

The restrained party has the burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that one of these circumstances is present and justifies a termination of the injunction. (Loeffler v. Medina (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1504.) The trial court may determine that the changed circumstances alleged by the restrained party are not material and, therefore, do not present a reason for terminating the injunction. (Id. at 1506.)

Ultimately, “granting, denying, dissolving, or refusing to dissolve a permanent or preliminary injunction rests in the sound discretion of the trial court upon a consideration of all the particular circumstances of each individual case.” (Prof'l Engineers v. Dep't of Transp. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 543, 562.) Although the court has broad discretion, it “must exercise its discretion ‘in favor of the party most likely to be injured.’” (Robbins v. Super. Ct. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 199, 205.) The ultimate goal is to minimize the harm which an erroneous interim decision may cause. (American Credit Indemnity Co. v. Sacks (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 622, 637.)

Useful Rulings on Motion to Dissolve Preliminary Injunction

Recent Rulings on Motion to Dissolve Preliminary Injunction

1-25 of 10000 results

PRICE VS THE CITY OF ANAHEIM

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction Provided that the City will stipulate to a preliminary injunction with respect to the provisions of Ordinance No. 6374 relating to immediate warrantless access to the short-term rental (STR) units, the Court DENIES the application for a preliminary injunction in all other respects, WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2030

ANGELA WATSON VS GILBERT A. CABOT

DISCUSSION As a preliminary matter, Defendants’ request for judicial notice of the December 5, 2019, Minute Order and the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) is GRANTED. DEMURRER 1st Cause of Action: Negligent Misrepresentation Statute of Limitations Defendants contend that the 1st cause of action is time-barred because Plaintiff failed to bring the claim within three years of the statute beginning to run.

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ARMEN G KOJIKIAN ET AL VS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO INC

The objections are moot based on the Court’s denial of the motion for Final Approval due to the parties’ failure to obtain preliminary approval of the addendum to the settlement. CONCLUSION: As the parties seek final approval of a Settlement which did not receive the proper preliminary approval, the settlement is NOT entitled to a presumption of fairness.

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

PAVEL ZAMOSHNIKOV VS. CODE COMPLIANCE OF CITY OF SACRAMENTO

The amended petition is captioned “AMENDED WRIT OF MANDUMADUS: REQUEST FOR AN INJUNCTION. REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF RECORDS/LIENS/FINES.”

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

HAWKINS VS. SAS RETAIL SERVICES, LLC

The reduction from 1/3 to 30% is based on the fact that no additional money is being paid to the class members even though the number of class members has increased by about 30% since the time of preliminary approval and the number of class member workweeks has increased by about 12% since preliminary approval. In addition, the average net recovery by class members is only about $117 (reduced from the $150 estimate at the preliminary approval stage).

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

BAIRD VS. GRAYBAR ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement is granted. A Final Approval Hearing is set for February 26, 2021 at 10:00 a.m.

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

LILIA RIOS, ET AL. VS EDGAR G. VILLAMARIN

Plaintiffs reply that a stay should not be granted because Defendant's September 30, 2020 date is arbitrary, and the only matter on calendar for the parallel criminal trial is a preliminary setting/resetting hearing on August 19, 2020, which provides no guarantee that the criminal trial will resolve by that point. Both parties agree it is within the Court's discretion in these circumstances to decide whether or not to issue a stay or grant the instant motions.

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

KOREAN AMERICAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE USA VS DAVID KANG, ET AL.

Sun Yup Kim’s December 27, 2019 email warrants reversal of the court’s order granting preliminary injunction because it shows that said order does not preserve the status quo and will cause irreparable harm to defendants by undermining their credibility and reputation.

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

KAIRI HARVIG VS VALERIO CHIAROTTI

. --- As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that the instant motion has been labeled as a Motion to Compel Further Requests for Admissions on both the caption and the hearing reservation. The motion is substantively and in all other respects a Motion to Compel Further Requests for Production of Documents.

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

510PACIFICAVE VS GINA M LA PIANA

BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant that arises from Defendant’s alleged improper use of an apartment unit, alleging causes of action for: (1) breach of contract and (2) preliminary and permanent injunction. Plaintiff filed a motion for summary adjudication as to the first cause of action in the complaint. On October 18, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication with respect to the first cause of action.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

WANG VS. WONG

Lastly, although the Notice of Motion states that Defendant’s Motion pertains also to the 4th cause of action for preliminary and permanent injunction, the Memorandum of Points and Authorities do not include any legal argument as to this claim.

  • 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

SOLOMON E. GRESEN VS ENCINO TOWER PARTNERS, LLC, ET AL.

Defendants argue Plaintiff’s request for an injunction preventing them from exercising their right to petition the Court to evict Plaintiff from the property via an unlawful detainer action violates Defendants’ right to petition. Defendants reason their right to petition the Court to evict Plaintiff constitutes petitioning activity and, thus, is protected conduct.

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

GOD VS 4106 ROSEWOOD CORPORATION

PRELIMINARY COMMENTS: On July 12, 2020, Plaintiff God died. These motions were filed on August 12, 2020. The Court would like to hear from Defendant’s counsel if they knew that Plaintiff was deceased when they filed their motions. BACKGROUND: This case stems from allegations of wrongful eviction from a rental property. Plaintiff God, in propria persona, alleges that he “was evicted with unlawful detainer for October 10, 2018 after living in 4106 Rosewood Ave Apartment Number 6 since March 01, 2014.

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

CU V. HO

Thus, when comparing the consequences from the issuance of a preliminary injunction to the consequences from not issuing a preliminary injunction, the balance of interim harms favors Plaintiff. (Cu Decl., ¶¶ 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 44.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2020

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

The court now considers plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction. When determining whether to grant a preliminary injunction, courts evaluate two interrelated factors: the first is the likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits at trial, and the second is the interim harm that the plaintiff is likely to sustain if the injunction were denied as compared to the harm that defendant is likely to suffer if the preliminary injunction were issued. Board of Supervisors of Butte County v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

GOD VS 4106 ROSEWOOD CORPORATION

PRELIMINARY COMMENTS: On July 12, 2020, Plaintiff God died. The Court wishes to express its condolences to God’s family for his tragic death. These motions were filed on August 12, 2020, one month after Plaintiff’s death. The Court would like to hear from Defendant’s counsel if they knew that Plaintiff was deceased when they filed their motions. BACKGROUND: This case stems from allegations of wrongful eviction from a rental property.

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

TANIA OLVERA, ET AL. VS RAY FISH, ET AL.

“An objecting party may be entitled to protection if it can make a preliminary or foundational showing that answering the interrogatory would reveal the attorney's tactics, impressions, or evaluation of the case, or would result in opposing counsel taking undue advantage of the attorney's industry or efforts”].) (Coito v. Superior Court (2012) 54 Cal.4th 480, 502.) Notes, statements, and impressions of the case are protected by the work product doctrine. A list of potential witnesses is not work product.

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2020

MANN VS MORENO VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Code § 54960.1(a), any interested person may commence an action by mandamus or injunction for the purpose of obtaining a judicial determination that an action taken by a legislative body of a local agency in violation of the Brown Act is null and void. Before the commencement of the action, the interested person must make a written demand of the legislative agency to cure or correct the action. (Govt. Code § 54960.1(b).) The demand must be made within 90 days or 30 days of the action.

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2020

GRACE DIANA KUHR VS AMERICAN SURETY COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, ET AL.

Second Cause of Action – Injunction to Enjoin Trustee Sale/ Seventh Cause of Action – Declaratory Relief ASC argues that a claim for injunctive is not a cause of action. (Motion at p. 6.) ASC also argues that the Complaint’s allegations that “Defendants cannot conduct a valid sale of the Subject Property under California law” is incorrect and/or unsupported. (Motion at pp. 6-7.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE VS BUI

The Motion for Preliminary Injunction and accompanying Declarations demonstrate that the County has a likelihood to prevail on this matter and the issuance of a preliminary injunction is granted.

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2020

KALJIAN SANTA BARBARA LLC V. DR. R. GREG LOWRY, DDS, INC.

“Generally, ‘the privilege-claimant “has the initial burden of proving the preliminary facts to show the privilege applies.” ’ [Citation.] … At that point, the burden of proof shifts to the party opposing the privilege claim.” (Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 596, italics omitted.) The documents at issue are individual tax returns, which are subject to the tax return privilege. (Schnabel v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 704, 720.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

MARIA HERNANDEZ V. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, ET AL.

Nature of Proceedings: Case Management Conference; Motion Preliminary Injunction Tentative

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

KAREN POWELL V. CLAIRE'S STORES, INC.

The significant terms of the settlement are forth in the Court’s ruling on preliminary approval. For the same reasons discussed in the Court’s ruling on preliminary approval, the Court finds that the settlement was reached through arm’s-length bargaining, the investigation and discovery were sufficient to allow counsel and the this Court to act intelligently, and counsel are experienced in similar litigation. No opposition or other response to this motion has been filed with the court.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

MARIA HERNANDEZ V. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, ET AL.

Nature of Proceedings: Case Management Conference; Motion Preliminary Injunction Case Management Conference; Motion Preliminary Injunction Attorneys: Plaintiff: Sarah Shapero; Defendants Patrick J. Kane Emails: [email protected]; [email protected] The Court received an email that reads: “As a status update in this matter, the parties continue to move closer to settling this matter.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 400     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.