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

MARCUS MARQUEZ VS SHAMMAS INVESTMENT LLC

Attorney Client Privilege/ Work Product Privilege “In general, when a party asserts the attorney-client privilege, that party has the burden of showing the preliminary facts necessary to support the privilege.” (Venture Law Group v. Superior Court (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 96, 102.) “The party asserting the privilege need only present facts which ‘support a prima facie claim of privilege.” (OXY Resources California LLC v. Superior Court (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 874, 894.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ARTS DISTRICT PATIENTS COLLECTIVE INC VS SERGIO TELLEZ ET AL

New causes of action for: (i) Derivative Cause of Action for Preliminary & Permanent Injunction / Removal of Officer / Director; (ii) Derivative Cause of Action for Appointment of Provisional Director; (iii) Derivative Cause of Action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (iv) Revised Direct Cause of Action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty based on post-Judgment status of parties; (v) Derivative Cause of Action for Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duty based on post-judgment aiding and abetting facts; (vi) Derivative

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

SANTA FE ART COLONY TENANTS ASSOCIATION, INC. A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION VS ART COLONY PROPERTY LLC, A DELAWARE LIMINTED LIABILITY COMPANY

As a preliminary matter, the court notes that Plaintiff establishes a legally recognized privacy interest in the identities of its general members. Nor does Defendant appear to dispute this. Rather, Defendant contends that it has a compelling need for the membership identities. As noted by the court in United Farm Workers of America v.

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JENNIFER RUSH VS KATHRYN IRELAND, ET AL.

Request for Injunction, Restraining Order—DENY. Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief or restraining order is not impermissibly vague. Plaintiff is clearly seeking an order to return the converted property to her, which is identified in ¶30.

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

KEITH M FROMM VS WELLS FARGO BANK N A ET AL

Department of Transportation (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1280, 1293 [“‘A permanent injunction is merely a remedy for a proven cause of action. It may not be issued if the underlying cause of action is not established.’ [Citation.]”].) Fromm prays for injunctive relief under other causes of action. The court therefore sustains Wells Fargo’s demurrer to the thirteenth cause of action for injunctive relief without leave to amend. ORDER For the reasons set forth above, the court rules as follows.

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

GHAEEM VS NAMVAR

As a preliminary matter, the court finds that plaintiff made a reasonable and good faith attempt to meet and confer before filing the motion. (See Tavakoli Decl., Ex. 3; Tavakoli Reply Decl., Ex. 1.) Turning to the merits, the evidence before the court does not show service of the documents to plaintiff. Although defense counsel asserts in his declaration that "[t]he documents, together with a cover letter, were mailed to Mr.

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

JOHN ROESSLER V. SYNECTIC SYSTEMS, INC., ET AL.

Existence of Agreement to Arbitrate: The Executive Services Agreement (ESA) provides, in ¶23.3: "The parties agree that, except for any action in which the Company seeks an injunction or other equitable order, if any dispute arises regarding this Agreement or the terms and conditions of the Executive’s employment by the Company, and that dispute is not resolved within fifteen (15) days of the date on which either party delivers to the other party a written notice invoking the arbitration provisions of this

  • Hearing

    Nov 16, 2020

SAPUTO VS. MEXSAL

The judgment may include attorney fees, interest, and costs but may not include imposition of a permanent injunction. Based upon the declarations of the Plaintiff and Counsel, this court awards damages as follows: 1. Damages in the amount of $15,930 which represents the amount of the money advanced by the plaintiffs to the Defendant(s) for services that were either never rendered or never resulted in any material value to the Plaintiff ; 2.

  • Hearing

    Nov 16, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

SHORNIKOV VS. LAKE ALHAMBRA

Preliminary Matters. A-1. Discovery. Plaintiff refers to discovery matters in the memorandum of points and authorities filed in support of plaintiff’s demurrer. For example, plaintiff argues that certain of defendant’s affirmative defenses are “shams” because defendant has not yet produced documents to support them. The Court has not considered these references, because (1) they are not supported by evidence and (2) discovery matters are not relevant to the adequacy of defendant’s answer. A-2.

  • Hearing

    Nov 16, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

VANESSA AYON, , AN INDIVIDUAL, AND AS A PROXY FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS THERMAL OPERATING COMPANY, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILTY COMPANY

As a representative, Plaintiff’s release under the settlement agreement states: “Upon the effective date, Plaintiff provides a full release of her PAGA claim on behalf of herself and a maximum of one other Aggrieved Employee to release Defendant, its respective officers, directors, owners, members, employees, agents (‘the Releasees’) from the PAGA penalties based on alleged violations of the Labor Code set forth in the Lawsuit, which are sections 2802 only, from the date of April 3, 2019, to the date of preliminary

  • Hearing

    Nov 16, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

PASCAL BRENNINKMEIJER, ET AL. VS SILVANA SOLARI, ET AL.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction is Denied.

  • Hearing

    Nov 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

SPL EXPRESS INC. VS. ORANGE COUNTY CLERK-RECORDER

Order to Show Cause re: Preliminary Injunction Moving Party: Plaintiffs SPL Express, Inc. and Synrgo, Inc. Responding Party: Defendants Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk and Dean C. Logan Ruling: Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction prohibiting Defendants Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk and Dean C.

  • Hearing

    Nov 16, 2020

FORMOSA FABRIC INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS OMID LAVI, ET AL.

and permanent injunction against Lavi and Arte, (11) unjust enrichment-constructive trust against all Defendants.

  • Hearing

    Nov 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

FLAVIO CASTRO, ET AL. VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

As a preliminary matter, Defendant’s motion makes a request for relief which should have been brought in six separate motions. A motion must be brought separately against each party and discovery method at issue. Defendant employed three discovery devices on two separate individuals. Defendant’s instant motion should have been filed as six separate motions and six filing fees paid; instead, Defendant filed only one motion and paid one filing fee.

  • Hearing

    Nov 16, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

17422 DERIAN IRVINE APARTMENTS, LLC VS. A&R CORPORATION, INC.

The next step after preliminary notice is for a claimant to record a claim of lien. Respondent had to record a lien within 90 days of completing its work on the project, or within 30 days of Petitioner’s notice of completion, whichever date arose sooner. (Code Civ. Proc., § 8414.) A copy of the recorded mechanic’s lien must be served on the owner. (Code Civ. Proc., § 8416.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 16, 2020

HOWARD SMITH, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS WEST HILLS HOSPITAL & MEDICAL CENTER, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Relevant Background The SAC alleges the following: In 2015, Smith and Defendant began preliminary discussions regarding the installation of a coffee cart at the West Hills Hospital Medical Center. (SAC ¶ 8.) In December 2015, Jennifer Ripley (“Ripley”), an employee and authorized agent of Defendant, provided Smith with internet technology and telephone cost estimates. (SAC ¶ 9.) Despite some delays, Ripley affirmed Defendant’s desire to have Plaintiff’s Coffee Cart in an email on January 29, 2016.

  • Hearing

    Nov 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SULLIVAN MD VS SHARP HEALTHCARE

Prior to granting an injunction, the court shall conduct an in camera review of the evidence sought to be discovered to determine if a peer review hearing, as authorized in Section 805 and Sections 809 to 809.5, inclusive, of the Business and Professions Code, would be impeded. If it is determined that the peer review hearing will be impeded, the injunction shall be granted until the peer review hearing is completed.

  • Hearing

    Nov 16, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

PATRICIA MILLER V. BERLIN PACKAGING, LLC.

Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement TENTATIVE RULING Parties to appear.

  • Hearing

    Nov 16, 2020

GREG BISEL VS EFD USA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

As a preliminary matter, this evidence is too vague and conclusory. Plaintiff fails to specify pertinent details such as the identity of the client or the timing of the transaction. More important, this evidence fails to establish causation between the wrongful conduct and harm. Plaintiff had to produce substantial evidence (not just a belief) which supports a reasonable inference that the telephone call’s recording caused him to lose this $15,000 commission.

  • Hearing

    Nov 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

SAN BERNARDINO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A CALIFORNIA PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT VS. STATE ALLOCATION BOARD, A CALIFORNIA STATE AGENCY

As a preliminary matter, the Court addresses the Board's request for judicial notice in opposing the motion. The Board seeks judicial notice of an order from another trial court. The Court denies this request. Although judicial notice may be proper under Evidence Code section 452, the item must still be relevant under Evidence Code section 352.

  • Hearing

    Nov 13, 2020

SAN BERNARDINO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A CALIFORNIA PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT VS. STATE ALLOCATION BOARD, A CALIFORNIA STATE AGENCY

As a preliminary matter, the Court addresses the Board’s request for judicial notice in opposing the motion. The Board seeks judicial notice of an order from another trial court. The Court denies this request. Although judicial notice may be proper under Evidence Code section 452, the item must still be relevant under Evidence Code section 352.

  • Hearing

    Nov 13, 2020

TERESA VARGAS PEREZ VS THE PARSONS GROUP INC

The purpose of the preliminary approval hearing is to determine whether the settlement is within the range of reasonableness for preliminary approval and to approve or deny certification of a provisional settlement class. A full inquiry into the fairness of the proposed settlement occurs at the final approval hearing. (Rules of Court, rule 3.769, subd. (g).)

  • Hearing

    Nov 13, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

ROSALES VS OLDE THOMPSON LLC

Defendant has not made 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. Defendant is ordered to answer this interrogatory without objection. Form Interrogatory-Employment 216.1: Defendant's response is not code-compliant.

  • Hearing

    Nov 13, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

VEGA VS. MANOR CARE

Preliminary Case Management Note The complaint initiating this case designates defendant Manor Care of Walnut Creek, CA, LLC as the lead defendant, followed by Manor Care Health Services – Walnut Creek and other defendants which have been dismissed without prejudice, other than the fictitiously named defendants Does 1-100. The caption shown on Plaintiff's Opposition to this Motion is erroneous and should be corrected on future filings (it shows the caption as "Diane Vega vs.

  • Hearing

    Nov 13, 2020

GONZALES VS. QUALITY ALUMINUM FORGE, LLC

The class size was 140 on preliminary approval, but has increased to 164 (by about 17%) on final approval. There is no explanation of why the class size increased so much, or whether the gross settlement amount should be increased to render the settlement fair, adequate and reasonable, since the agreement itself contains no escalation clause. Plaintiff is ordered to give notice to defense counsel unless notice is waived.

  • Hearing

    Nov 13, 2020

  « 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.