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

226-250 of 10000 results

IN THE MATTER OF ERIC ROSENBERG

With no authority to do so, Petitioner made preliminary distributions of $48,637.39 each to the three intestate heirs. (Prob. C. §§ 10520, 10501(a)(4).) With no authority to do so, Petitioner paid himself $97,466.55 in compensation during this account period. (Petition, p. 3; Prob. C. § 10501(a)(1); C.R.C. 7.700(a).) The Court will discuss a surcharge against the administrator pursuant to Prob. C. § 9601 and C.R.C 7.700(b).

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

  • Type

    Probate

  • Sub Type

    Trust

IN THE MATTER OF ROBERT E. WOLFE

Why was the petition for preliminary distribution filed, withdrawn, and filed again? For such a large reserve as $20,000, the Court intends to require a supplemental accounting. Set dates. Absent any objections, approve the allocation of the costs advanced for the Washington state ancillary probate. The proposed final distribution of the estate appears consistent with the laws of intestate succession and the parties' agreement at Exh. C.

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

  • Type

    Probate

  • Sub Type

    Trust

PARISI, ET AL. V. ALMADEN PROJECT LLC, ET AL.

However, when the defendants failed to properly make those repairs, Plaintiffs retained RH Building Contractors (“RH”) to inspect the property who provided a preliminary inspection report that listed defects and damages to: the garage, the office, the guest bathroom, the pantry, the kitchen, the family room, the dining room, the living room, the entryway, the stairway, the coat closet, the kids bedrooms, the kids bathroom, the master bedroom, the master bathroom, the outside entryway, the attic access, the stucco

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

VICTOR LARA VS CAL ART DESIGN CORP., ET AL.

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that Counsel seeks to be relieved as counsel for Defendant and not any of the individual named defendants, i.e., Matthew Harris and Bob Harris. The Court finds that Counsel has complied generally with the procedural requirements (CRC 3.1362) and has provided sufficient reasons for withdrawal. Accordingly, it is the intent of the Court to grant the unopposed motion to be relieved as counsel. Counsel is ordered to give notice of this Order.

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

RICBERAY, INC. VS JORGE RODRIGUEZ, SR, ET AL.

., et al PERMANENT INJUNCTION (Civil Code § 798.88) TENTATIVE RULING: Petitioner Ricebray, Inc.’s Petition for Permanent Injunction is CONTINUED TO DECEMBER 10, 2020 AT 10:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. ANALYSIS: Petitioner Ricebray, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed the instant Petition for Permanent Injunction Pursuant to Civil Code Section 798.88 against Jorge Rodriguez, Sr., Rebecca Rodriguez, Ramon Gonzalez, and Jorge Rodriguez, Jr. (“Respondents”) on September 16, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ANIMAL PROTECTION AND RESCUE LEAGUE INC VS RAMIREZ

Instead, as stated in cases cited by Perot (and ignored in plaintiff's reply brief), the general rule is that an injunction may not issue unless the alleged misconduct is ongoing or likely to recur.

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

MELISSA PARKER, ET AL. VS CLARK GRANDIN, ET AL.

As noted above re: Petitioners’ motion to seal, the Emergency Arbitrator issued the following preliminary injunction: The preliminary injunction is granted.

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

GERRY CHONKO VS. MOBILEHOME RENTAL REVIEW BOARD FOR CITY OF ESCONDIDO

Respondent/Defendant City of Escondido ("Respondent")'s motion to dismiss Petitioners/Plaintiffs Gerry Chonko, Larry Gerst, Bud Livermore, Dick Palmer, and Rob Wise (collectively, "Petitioners")'s Petition and Complaint for Writ of Mandate, Declaratory Relief, and Preliminary Injunction (the "Petition") is granted. See Cal. Code Civ. P. §§ 583.410(a) and 583.420(a)(2)(A)-(B), Cal. R. Ct. 3.1340(a) and 3.1342(e), and Binyon v. State of Cal. (1993) 17 Cal. App. 4th 952, 955.

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

ANIMAL PROTECTION AND RESCUE LEAGUE INC VS RAMIREZ

Instead, as stated in cases cited by Perot (and ignored in plaintiff's reply brief), the general rule is that an injunction may not issue unless the alleged misconduct is ongoing or likely to recur.

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

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

4741 SC LLC VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

As a preliminary matter, Petitioner argues that City could only grant the incentive if it was “necessary” economically or financially in order for Real Party to provide the affordable housing unit. (See e.g. OB 2 fn. 2 [“real party does not need to expand the building envelope by an extra 3 ft. of front-yard set-back space in order to provide for the one very low affordable unit”]; OB 4 and 7, fn. 4.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

ULRS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS DYNAMIC CLINICAL LABORATORIES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

A substantial amount of preliminary organizational work was necessary for a successful collection effort. Id. ULRS assigned four employees to work on the Dynamic accounts on a full-time basis for about two months. Id. ULRS incurred significant expense in working the accounts up to a point where it could begin collecting them. Hakim Decl., ¶9.

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

CATALINA FRANCO, ET AL. VS POMONA VALLEY HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER, ET AL.

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that Plaintiffs Catalina Franco, Anabel Franck, Maricarmen Franco, Rigoberto Franco, Berenice Franco, Elizabeth Franco, Patricia Franco and Rodolfo Franco, Jr. (collectively “Plaintiffs”) contend this motion should be rejected in its entirety because Defendant failed to properly meet and confer as to the issues raised in the demurrer.

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

NKLOSURES, INC. ARCHITECTS FKA NKLOSURES, INC. VS AVALON LODGING, LLC DBA BEST WESTERN PREMIER #05747

Plaintiff alleges that it agreed to provide 4 phases of work for the project including: (1) initial studies; (2) site planning and preliminary designs; (3) final conceptual design; and (4) consulting services. Plaintiff alleges that it is the sole author, owner, and copyright holder of all architectural plans provided to Patel for the project.

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

HUGO ENRIQUE RIVERA VS. ANABEL GALLAGHER

Analysis As a preliminary matter, the Court considers Rivera's argument that the Court's interim decision and interlocutory judgment went beyond the Court's authority because Gallagher's cross-complaint stated that Rivera was entitled to credit for his down payments, and this was beyond the request made at trial by Rivera. This is incorrect.

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

ANIMAL PROTECTION AND RESCUE LEAGUE INC VS RAMIREZ

Instead, as stated in cases cited by Perot (and ignored in plaintiff's reply brief), the general rule is that an injunction may not issue unless the alleged misconduct is ongoing or likely to recur.

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

LONG FINANCIAL SERVICES INC ET AL VS THIRD EYE CAPITAL CORPO

As a preliminary note, Plaintiffs argue that Moving Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings is untimely and should be denied on procedural grounds. Specifically, Plaintiffs argue that pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 438, a motion for judgment on the pleadings should have been made, if at all, within 30 days after the date this action was initially set for trial, which Plaintiffs argue has long since passed. (Opposition, 2-3.) The court finds Plaintiffs’ argument unavailing.

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

BENSHOOF VS. BLACKBERRY CORPORATION

The lack of mutuality, together with the carve-out provision being broader than CCP §1281.8(b) because it permitted any type of injunctive relief, including a permanent injunction, and waived the requirement of a bond, made this provision substantively unconscionable. (Id. at 249-250.) The rationale in Baltazar applies here, and the Court finds that this provision is not substantively unconscionable. 3.

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

SPARBER ANNEN MORRIS & GABRIEL APLC VS HILLSBOROUGH DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LLC

him, to the Court of Appeal ruling setting aside that preliminary injunction, to the various meeting and disputes over whether a sufficient quorum existed to remove Attorney Annen after the Court of Appeal ruling, to, most recently, the evidentiary hearing on whether to issue a new preliminary injunction potentially removing Attorney Annen from the position of Manager).

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

REDWOOD MORTGAGE INVESTORS VIII, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP VS ERINA GILERMAN

In the opposition filed on September 2, 2020, Redwood notes that relating and consolidating the cases would have the effect of imposing an injunction against it as the current owner of the properties. Redwood also argues there is no evidence Gilerman will be making a claim of possession in the unlawful detainer actions and improperly argues the merits of the underlying actions.

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

ANIMAL PROTECTION AND RESCUE LEAGUE INC VS RAMIREZ

Instead, as stated in cases cited by Perot (and ignored in plaintiff's reply brief), the general rule is that an injunction may not issue unless the alleged misconduct is ongoing or likely to recur.

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

FARIES VS FARISE

and (2) are unable to agree with the moving parties upon the fair value of those shares, and (3) give bond with sufficient security to pay the estimated reasonable expenses (including attorneys' fees) of the moving parties if those expenses are recoverable under subdivision (c), the court upon application of the purchasing parties, either in the pending action or in a proceeding initiated in the superior court of the proper county by the purchasing parties in the case of a voluntary election to wind up and dissolve

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

LAGUATAN VS PREVENT LIFE SAFETY SERVICES INC [E-FILE]

TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class and PAGA Action Settlement is GRANTED. The Court will adopt as its own the proposed order filed on June 9, 2020, with the modification that the final hearing will be in Department 68. The Court hereby sets the final approval hearing for March 26, 2021 at 10:30 a.m.

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

KAPLINSKY VS. PB & J AUTOMOTIVE, INC.

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes this motion is technically premature. The parties rely on Plaintiff’s acceptance of Defendant’s 998 Offer. The parties agree that pursuant to the 998 offer, Plaintiff is prevailing party entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees. The parties dispute the amount of said fees. Here, the 998 Offer and acceptance was not filed with the court.

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

SPARBER ANNEN MORRIS & GABRIEL APLC VS HILLSBOROUGH DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LLC

him, to the Court of Appeal ruling setting aside that preliminary injunction, to the various meeting and disputes over whether a sufficient quorum existed to remove Attorney Annen after the Court of Appeal ruling, to, most recently, the evidentiary hearing on whether to issue a new preliminary injunction potentially removing Attorney Annen from the position of Manager).

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

  « first    1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 400     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.