“[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.)
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.)
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.)
Preliminary Matters Plaintiff's foundation and speculation objections to Mooney's declaration in opposition to the contempt motion are sustained. The Court notes that the "best evidence rule" was repealed over 20 years ago. See Evid. Code § 1520 (secondary evidence rule). Thus, the objections citing such a rule are overruled. Productora's objection to Juarez's declaration submitted on reply is overruled.
Dec 22, 2020
Business
Intellectual Property
San Diego County, CA
Preliminary Matters Plaintiff's foundation and speculation objections to Mooney's declaration in opposition to the contempt motion are sustained. The Court notes that the "best evidence rule" was repealed over 20 years ago. See Evid. Code § 1520 (secondary evidence rule). Thus, the objections citing such a rule are overruled. Productora's objection to Juarez's declaration submitted on reply is overruled.
Dec 22, 2020
Business
Intellectual Property
San Diego County, CA
Demurrer – Injunctive Relief “A preliminary injunction is an interim remedy designed to maintain the status quo pending a decision on the merits. [Citation.] It is not, in itself, a cause of action.” (See MaJor v. Miraverde Homeowners Assn. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 618, 623.) A preliminary injunction may be issued only after serving a noticed motion. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1150, subd. (a).)
Dec 22, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Preliminary Matters Plaintiff's foundation and speculation objections to Mooney's declaration in opposition to the contempt motion are sustained. The Court notes that the "best evidence rule" was repealed over 20 years ago. See Evid. Code § 1520 (secondary evidence rule). Thus, the objections citing such a rule are overruled. Productora's objection to Juarez's declaration submitted on reply is overruled.
Dec 22, 2020
Business
Intellectual Property
San Diego County, CA
PRELIMINARY COMMENTS: The issue presented here is the same one presented in co-Defendant Mario Beltran’s previous anti-SLAPP motion. It is a simple issue: is an alleged extortion scheme protected by the anti-SLAPP statute? The answer is the same as was stated by the Court previously when it denied co-Defendant Beltran’s anti-SLAPP motion: No.
Dec 22, 2020
Employment
Discrimination/Harass
Los Angeles County, CA
The Complaint alleges the preliminary notice was provided within 20 days of providing labor, materials and equipment. (Compl. ¶11.) It also alleges that Plaintiff timely recorded a mechanic’s lien. (Compl. ¶12.) It alleges Defendants have/claim a right, title, or interest in the property that is subordinate to Plaintiff’s lien. (Compl. ¶13.) The Complaint also incorporates prior allegations setting forth the scope of the agreement. (Compl. ¶10.)
Dec 22, 2020
Riverside County, CA
Preliminary Matters Plaintiff's foundation and speculation objections to Mooney's declaration in opposition to the contempt motion are sustained. The Court notes that the "best evidence rule" was repealed over 20 years ago. See Evid. Code § 1520 (secondary evidence rule). Thus, the objections citing such a rule are overruled. Productora's objection to Juarez's declaration submitted on reply is overruled.
Dec 22, 2020
Business
Intellectual Property
San Diego County, CA
PRELIMINARY COMMENTS: On December 1, 2020, co-Defendant Mario Beltran’s anti-SLAPP motion raised as simple question: “is an alleged extortion scheme protected by the anti-SLAPP statute?” The Court indicated that the answer was equally simple: “No.” Today the remaining defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion raises the same question. The answer is the same: an alleged extortion scheme is not protected by the First or Fourteenth Amendments, and is not subject to an anti-SLAPP motion.
Dec 22, 2020
Employment
Discrimination/Harass
Los Angeles County, CA
PRELIMINARY COMMENT: Although Masoumeh Mohajer represents that she is Plaintiff’s survivor, there has been no document filed with the Court indicating that she has been appointed as Plaintiff’s successor-in-interest. When a plaintiff dies while their suit is pending, the personal representative or successor-in-interest must file a motion with the court to allow the action to be continued by Plaintiff’s personal representative or successor-in-interest. (Code Civ. Proc., § 377.31.)
Dec 21, 2020
Business
Intellectual Property
Los Angeles County, CA
Crane points out in its reply, the court’s decree to wind up and dissolve the corporation unless R.R. Crane pays the fair value of BWC’s shares within the time specified by the decree is not a money judgment or an award of “damages” to which the statutes authorizing awarding prejudgment interest apply. (Code Civ. Proc., § 3287 [authorizing person who is entitled to recover damages to recover interest], § 3288 [interest may be given in an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract].)
Dec 21, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Preliminary matter In Defendants’ evidentiary objections 1, 3, 29, 34, and 42, there is an objection that Defendants did not receive some of the exhibits within Plaintiff’s opposition papers. This asserted omission should have been a subject of a meet and confer between counsel. If the Plaintiff did not provide the allegedly missing material to the Defendants, this provision shall be made by the Plaintiff’s side before this hearing.
Dec 21, 2020
Orange County, CA
“Any corporation may elect voluntarily to wind up and dissolve by the vote of shareholders holding shares representing 50 percent or more of the voting power.” Corp. Code § 1900(a). “When a voluntary proceeding for winding up has commenced. . . The board shall cause written notice of the commencement of the proceeding for voluntary winding up to be given by mail to all shareholders . . . and to all known creditors and claimants whose addresses appear on the records of the corporation.” Corp.
Dec 21, 2020
Orange County, CA
PRELIMINARY COMMENT: Although Masoumeh Mohajer represents that she is Plaintiff’s survivor, there has been no documentation filed with the Court indicating that she has been appointed as Plaintiff’s successor in interest. When a plaintiff dies while their suit is pending, the personal representative or successor-in-interest must file a motion with court to allow the action to be continued by Plaintiff’s personal representative or successor-in-interest. (Code Civ. Proc., § 377.31.)
Dec 21, 2020
Business
Intellectual Property
Los Angeles County, CA
Court issues preliminary injunction.
Dec 21, 2020
Riverside County, CA
An initial study is only a preliminary analysis and the regulatory requirements regarding its contents are not as demanding as those imposed upon an EIR. Id. An initial study is neither intended nor required to include the level of detail included in an EIR. Id.
Dec 21, 2020
San Diego County, CA
PRELIMINARY COMMENTS: Defendant’s Reply refers to numerous exhibits, allegedly filed by Plaintiffs. (See, e.g., Reply, p. 2:13 [“Pl.’s Exh. 6-005]; p. 215 [“Pl.’s Ex. 1-003; p. 2:16 [“Ex. 2-003”]; p. 2:26-27 [Pl.’s Exh. 2-001].) None of these exhibits are part of the record in this motion; in fact, the Court does not even know to which exhibits Defendant is referring. Hence, the Court will not consider these alleged exhibits or the argument allegedly supported by them.
Dec 18, 2020
Real Property
other
Los Angeles County, CA
Case Number: 20STCV40645 Hearing Date: December 19, 2020 [Tentative] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Dec 18, 2020
Other
Intellectual Property
Los Angeles County, CA
However, to the extent Plaintiff is seeking an injunction order, she has not stated her intention of doing so (or the legal basis), has not shown that probability of prevailing on her claims, or that circumstances exist to impose such an injunction. In addition, from the moving papers, it is unclear who this motion is directed against—whether it is against all Defendants or only certain Defendants.
Dec 18, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
“The party claiming the privilege has the burden of establishing the preliminary facts necessary to support its exercise, i.e., a communication made in the course of an attorney-client relationship. [Citations.]
Dec 18, 2020
Orange County, CA
Plaintiff moves for preliminary approval of a class action settlement. TENTATIVE RULING Plaintiff Christopher Estrada’s motion for preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement is GRANTED. A final approval hearing is set for April 14, 2021 at 8:30 a.m. Final approval briefs are due pursuant to code. ANALYSIS Motion For Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement Plaintiff moves for preliminary approval of a class action settlement of wage and hour claims, including a PAGA claim for civil penalties.
Dec 18, 2020
Employment
Other Employment
Los Angeles County, CA
The tentative ruling is to continue the hearing on plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement to March 18, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. in Department CX103. 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.
Dec 18, 2020
Orange County, CA
But Corcept raises a preliminary objection: that mentioning “the development of ovarian cysts” is insufficient to allege “information” in the first place, let alone “newly acquired information.” Its principal authority in support of this argument is a ruling from the San Francisco Superior Court. (Pradaxa Cases (S.F. Super. Ct. Nov. 8, 2019, No. CJC-16-004863) 2019 WL 6043513.)
Dec 18, 2020
Orange County, CA
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval of Partial Settlement with Defendant Kee Jae Lee, and Motion for Preliminary Approval of Partial Settlement with Defendants Young Tae Beck, Young Beck Realty Corp., and B & Lee, Inc., are granted. A Final Approval Hearing (for all the settlements plaintiffs have reached) is set for May 7, 2021 at 10:00 a.m.
Dec 18, 2020
Orange County, CA
Plaintiff Victor Logachev's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement and for an Order; 1)Preliminarily Approving Class Action Settlement; 2) Directing Distribution of Notice of Settlement; and 3) Setting a Hearing for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement is CONTINUED to February 5, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. in Department CX104 to permit the parties to respond to the following items of concern.
Dec 18, 2020
Orange County, CA
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement is CONTINUED to February 5, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. in Department CX104 to permit the parties to respond to the following items of concern. Any supplemental briefing shall be filed on or before January 26, 2021. If a revised settlement agreement and/or class notice is submitted, a redline showing all changes, deletions and additions must be submitted as well.
Dec 18, 2020
Orange County, CA
« first previous 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 400 next last »
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
