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 Resources for 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

Y.S. MEDIA AGENCY, INC. VS L & S BROTHERS LLC, ET AL.

Analysis As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that the usual methods to object based on nonjoinder are a demurrer and answer. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 430.10, subd. (d), 430.30, subds. (a), (b); see also McKeon v. Hastings College of Law (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 877, 889.) Nevertheless, the Court may decide this issue on a motion to dismiss using its inherent authority. (Code Civ. Proc., § 581, subd.

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

SIEMSEN, ET AL., V. QUAIL MEADOWS EAST, LLC, ET AL.

On October 30, 2020, the court denied without prejudice plaintiffs’ ex-parte application for an emergency temporary restraining order and order to show cause for a preliminary injunction. On November 2, 2020, the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, summarily denied plaintiffs’ request for writ of mandate/prohibition. (Siemsen v. Superior Court of Santa Barbara County, B308537.) It appears no petition for review was filed.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

ADRIAN MADDEN VS GURUCUL SOLUTIONS, LLC

PRELIMINARY COMMENTS: I. This lawsuit arises from Plaintiff’s allegation that he was shorted approximately $37,666.35 in commissions.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

NEW MILLENNIUM BUSINESS CONSULTANTS, INC. VS MYMAIL MANAGEMENT, LLC, ET AL.

PRELIMINARY COMMENTS: The Court understands that there is a fourth identical discovery motion set for hearing on 1/28/2021; the motion relates to the Request for Production of Documents, Set One, which is comprised of 83 requests for production of documents. (RFPD Motion, p. 2:14-18.) It might be beneficial for the parties to address the issues for that motion as well at the IDC.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

SUSHI BEAR, INC. VS. THE ONE SOLUTION

Without irreparable damages, the request for preliminary injunction is denied.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

NEW MILLENNIUM BUSINESS CONSULTANTS, INC. VS MYMAIL MANAGEMENT, LLC, ET AL.

PRELIMINARY COMMENTS: The Court understands that there is a fourth identical discovery motion set for hearing on 1/28/2021; the motion relates to the Request for Production of Documents, Set One, which is comprised of 83 requests for production of documents. (RFPD Motion, p. 2:14-18.) It might be beneficial for the parties to address the issues for that motion as well at the IDC.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

AMERICA CHUNG NAM LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS LI 'MICHAEL' DU

While the court will order the return of information, it declines to issue an injunction compelling Du to disclose information. That is a discovery issue inappropriate for a preliminary injunction. E. Conclusion The application for a preliminary injunction is granted in large part.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

BARRY PICKELL ET AL. V. COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ET AL.

Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint (FAC) alleges causes of action for (1) inverse condemnation, (2) dangerous condition of public property, (3) dangerous condition caused by negligence of public employees, (4) trespass, (5) nuisance, (6) failure to discharge mandatory duty, and (7) temporary restraining order, and preliminary and permanent injunctions. The Individual Defendants are alleged to be employed with the County. (FAC, ¶¶ 3, 4.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

TUMBLING WATERS MOBILE HOME PARK, LLC VS TAMMY ANNE KNAPP-ARAGON, ET AL.

FILED: 08-11-20 NOTICE: OK PROCEEDINGS: PETITION FOR INJUNCTION TO PREVENT RECURRING MOBILEHOME PARK RULE VIOLATIONS MOVING PARTY: Petitioner Tumbling Waters Mobile Home Park, LLC RESP. PARTY: None PERMANENT INJUNCTION (Civil Code § 798.88) TENTATIVE RULING: The Petition for Injunction to Prevent Recurring Mobilehome Park Rule Violations is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT OF RANCHO CORDOVA LLC VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL

The prayer for relief in connection with the second cause of action (the only cause of action Respondent demurs to via this motion) requests the Court issue a “writ of mandate and/or injunction commanding DTSC to provide Stericycle to immediate access and splits of the physical samples DTSC took on February 11, 2020 from the Rancho Cordova facility.” (Id., p. 8, ¶ B.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT OF RANCHO CORDOVA LLC VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL

The prayer for relief in connection with the second cause of action (the only cause of action Respondent demurs to via this motion) requests the Court issue a "writ of mandate and/or injunction commanding DTSC to provide Stericycle to immediate access and splits of the physical samples DTSC took on February 11, 2020 from the Rancho Cordova facility." (Id, p. 8, ^ B.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

FRIENDS OF OCEANO DUNES INC VS. CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD

CARB withheld or redacted these records based on the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, the deliberative process privilege, and statutory exemptions for "preliminary drafts and notes" as well as "records pertaining to pending litigation." (See Gov't Code § 6254(a), (b) and (d).)^ Some o f t h e withheld documents reflect discussions among counsel for CARB, counsel for the District and counsel for State Parks.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

JOSEPH BENARON ET AL VS JOHN CARDILINO ET AL

(outdoor lighting), assault, and injunction. Benarons live at 9 Fellowship Circle in Santa Barbara, and Cardilinos live with their adult daughters at 15 Fellowship Circle. Cardilinos’ property is on the inner circle of Fellowship Circle, and faces Benarons’ property. Benarons allege a long course of harassing conduct by Cardilinos, beginning in 2016. There have been numerous proceedings directed to the pleadings as well as a hearing on a preliminary injunction.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS CHEN

PLT The People of the State of California; DEF John Chen Motion - Other (Order to Amend) The Court, having reviewed the Stipulation for And Order To Amend and Strike Paragraph 5 From Injunction and Final Judgment, finds, adjudges and orders as follows: That the Stipulation be GRANTED. That the Stipulation For And Order For Injunction and Final Judgment entered on 12/18/03 is hereby amended, effective immediately, by striking the injunctive terms of Paragraph 5.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

FAWAZ ELMASRI VS JUSTIN PAUL RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes this motion is not untimely. Cross-complainant Justin Paul Rodriguez maintains that Elmasri did not file this motion in response to the original Cross-Complaint, thereby rendering it untimely. Here, the original Cross-Complaint was based only on Elmasri’s concealment of his knowledge of the December 20, 2012 Deed of Trust. (Original X-Compl. ¶ 4.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

ANA TORRES, ET AL. VS FCA US, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

PRELIMINARY COMMENTS: On February 3, 2020, Plaintiff filed four motions to compel. After the Court issued its tentative – to take the motions off-calendar pending an Informal Discovery Conference – Plaintiff filed her request to take the motions off-calendar. Plaintiff’s law firm has again filed a Motion to Compel, despite the Court’s firm statement that it would not rule on such a motion until after an Informal Discovery Conference. (See infra.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

GLOGER V. SANTA ANA PROPCO LLC

Furthermore, a nuisance cause of action pled in a complaint not requesting an injunction but seeking only damages renders a nuisance cause of action as a negligent cause of action. (See El Escorial Owners' Assn v. DLC Plastering, Inc., supra, 154 Cal. App. 4th at p. 1349.) Plaintiff’s second cause of action is for negligence/premises liability. (FAC, at pp. 13-14.) Defendant has not demurred to that cause of action.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

MONTES VS. KINDNESS GENERAL CONTRACTORS, LLC

Plaintiff Miguel Montes' Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement Case was reassigned to Hon. James DiCesare in Department C16.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

MARTIN BRIONES, ET AL. VS PENN ESCROW, ET AL.

Plaintiffs allege, in connection with the Refinance, Penn requested a preliminary title report for the Property (“Title Report”) from Old Republic Title Company (“Old Republic”), which identified the original NL Loan as Item 5 and an additional deed of trust securing a loan made by HUD as Item 9 [the HUD Loan]. (FAC ¶40, Exh. 1.) The Item 5 Deed of Trust dated July 11, 2011 reflects a Loan No. of 139836 and notes a September 8, 2016 Modification/Amendment, executed by Plaintiffs and Defendant.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

PENCE VS. SOBER LIVING BY THE SEA, INC.

At the parties’ request, the hearing on plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class and Representative Action Settlement is continued to February 19, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. The supplemental papers must be filed at least 16 days before the new hearing date.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

MARIA CARMEN LEAL VS. NELLY DAGSTANYAN

As a preliminary matter, Mr. Dagstanyan argues in his opposition that Becharoff’s motion to compel further response was not timely filed within 45 days of the responses. While there is a 45-day time limit to bring motions to compel further responses pursuant to section 2031.310, Becharoff also brought this motion pursuant to CCP § 2031.320 (re motion to compel for failure to produce documents), which does not contain a time constraint to bring such a motion.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ZOHAR MANAGEMENT, LLC VS HOLLOWAY DRIVE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

PRELIMINARY COMMENTS: On September 14, 2020, Defendant filed motions to compel. Plaintiff did not file an opposition, and the Court granted the motion on October 16, 2020. On December 15, 2020, Defendant filed these two motions to compel further responses. Once again, Plaintiff has not opposed the motion. The Court finds Plaintiff’s non-opposition to be baffling. If Plaintiff believed that the motions should have been denied, it should have opposed the motions.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

GONZALEZ VS. ADVANCED DYNAMIC SOLUTIONS, INC.

The tentative ruling is to continue the hearing on plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement to February 26, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. Counsel must file supplemental papers addressing the court’s concerns (not fully revised papers that would have to be re-read) at least 16 days before the next hearing date. Counsel should submit an amendment to the settlement agreement rather than any amended settlement agreement.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

ALFRED L. CARR VS LESLIE ANNE CALDWELL

alleges that in January of 2020, defendant instructed the LLC corporate headquarters to draft a partnership agreement and business continuation plan document, but those documents were not faithful to the oral contract or the official resolution, as defendant made herself a 60% owner of the LLC, with defendant having the unilateral right to determine the value of the LLC, determine a buy-out amount of plaintiff’s interest, exempt defendant from repaying plaintiff’s loans, exclude plaintiff from realizing profits, dissolve

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

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.