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

276-300 of 10000 results

JOHNSON VS MENDOZA

As a preliminary matter, the court finds the motion is timely. In addition, the court finds that the documents requested are relevant the claims alleged and Mr. Spera has not asserted a valid basis to withhold those documents. The court will hear from Defendant and Mr. Spera as to when a subsequent deposition will occur. Defendant's request for sanctions is denied without prejudice.

  • Hearing

    Nov 12, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

RC CREATIONS INC VS AP BEACON CARLSBAD LP

Plaintiff was therefore not required to provide Defendant preliminary notice before filing its mechanic's lien and any alleged deficient pleading in that regard is inapt. Defendant's reliance upon Truestone, Inc. v. Simi W. Indus. Park II (1984) 163 Cal. App. 3d 715, is misplaced. Truestone involved an appeal from an order granting a property owner summary judgment.

  • Hearing

    Nov 12, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

LEILA M LIM VS MAWI C LASET ET AL

Electronic Filing As a preliminary matter, the Court reminds the parties that “[e]lectronic documents must be electronically filed in PDF, text searchable format when technologically feasible without impairment of the document’s image.” (First Amended General Order re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil, 5/3/19.) Any failure to comply with this aspect of the First Amended General Order in the future may result in the pleading at issue being stricken.

  • Hearing

    Nov 12, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CHATELAINE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION VS TERESA MCCLENDON, ET AL

No reference is made to the injunction and declaratory relief causes of action. Plaintiff offers no discussion of what evidence satisfies each element of each of the remaining causes of action, including the element of damages. Plaintiff’s separate statement is properly organized by cause of action. However, merely citing to facts in support of a cause of action without associating the material fact with a particular element is insufficient to meet Plaintiff’s burden on summary judgment.

  • Hearing

    Nov 12, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

WILLIAM DWIGHT TOUCHBERRY ET AL VS DOES 1 TO 250

As our Supreme Court held: “The trial court's preliminary determination whether the expert opinion is founded on sound logic is not a decision on its persuasiveness.” (Id. at 772). “The court must not weigh an opinion's probative value or substitute its own opinion for the expert's opinion.” (Id.) “The court does not resolve scientific controversies.” (Id.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 12, 2020

LIGHVANI VS GARDEN COMMUNITIES INC

Preliminary Matters Although plaintiff did not file an opposition to the motion, her counsel filed a declaration purportedly in support of opposition. Mirkarimi Decl. [ROA # 75]. The declaration was not timely filed or served. CCP § 1005(b) (opposition due nine court days before the hearing). In the declaration, counsel requests the hearing date be continued until after his motion to withdraw, apparently to allow plaintiff "adequate time to obtain new counsel and respond to discovery...."

  • Hearing

    Nov 12, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BY AND THROUGH MARY C. WICKHAM, COUNTY COUNSEL FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL. VS FETTERLY INVESTMENTS,LLC, ET AL.

Fetterly Investments, LLC Case #: 20STCV19681 Hearing Date: 11/12/20 (OSC Re: entry of default judgment) Defaulting Party: Defendant Fetterly Investments, LLC, and Defendant Green Bodega, a business entity form unknown Total Amount: $336,954.80 + Injunction BACKGROUND: Defendant Fetterly Investments, LLC, rented the 501 S. Fetterly Ave property (the “subject property”) to Defendant Green Bodega, from which the latter ran an unauthorized marijuana shop.

  • Hearing

    Nov 12, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

DE LA ROSA VS PEREZ

Coito emphasizes that absolute work product protection only attaches if the opposing party makes a preliminary or foundational showing that disclosure would reveal his or her impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal research or theories. (Coito, supra, 54 Cal.4th at p. 499). Here, Rudolfo has failed to produce any evidence in the form of a declaration or otherwise that the discovery sought, if produced, would disclose counsel’s impressions or opinions of the case.

  • Hearing

    Nov 12, 2020

LIGHVANI VS GARDEN COMMUNITIES INC

Preliminary Matters Although plaintiff did not file an opposition to the motion, her counsel filed a declaration purportedly in support of opposition. Mirkarimi Decl. [ROA # 75]. The declaration was not timely filed or served. CCP § 1005(b) (opposition due nine court days before the hearing). In the declaration, counsel requests the hearing date be continued until after his motion to withdraw, apparently to allow plaintiff "adequate time to obtain new counsel and respond to discovery...."

  • Hearing

    Nov 12, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

IN RE: JOHN ROFFONI

Footnote 1: In light of this ruling, which is based on Civil Code section 8480, the Court does not address Petitioners’ alternative arguments based on Civil Code sections 8414 [untimely claim] and 8200 [preliminary notice].

  • Hearing

    Nov 12, 2020

RICE VS FCA US LLC

Preliminary Matters Plaintiff's foundation and improper expert opinion objections to the portion of paragraph seven in Fellenz's declaration are sustained. Discussion Plaintiff moves to compel compliance with the Court's earlier discovery order under the authority provided in CCP section 2031.310.

  • Hearing

    Nov 12, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

BAYSIDE PALMS INVESTORS LLC VS FRANCO

The duration of the injunction shall not exceed three years. Respondents David Franco and Jasmine Navarro Franco are ordered to remove all unapproved guests from the premises by January 15, 2021, and are prohibited from subletting the premises unless approved by Petitioner in accordance with the park's rules. Petitioner also requests attorney fees and costs. Petitioner may seek attorney fees and costs as authorized by law and per court rules.

  • Hearing

    Nov 12, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

KINGDOM OF SWEDEN VS TRAN

As a preliminary matter, the Court is persuaded that the certification provided by Mr. Lennart Christofferson complies with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1110. The Court has significant doubts as to whether defendant complied with the letter and the spirit of the requirement that parties meet and confer before filing a demurrer (Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41). Nevertheless, in the interest of efficiency, the Court will address the merits of the demurrer at this time.

  • Hearing

    Nov 12, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

11-13-20 COUNTY V. ENGSTROM

Such declarations were filed in support of the application for preliminary injunction, which has already been heard and granted. Moreover, this court specifically stated that the 'Governor's mask requirement and patronage limits' were not at issue in this case. Thus, these declarations provided no weight in the court's decision on the preliminary injunction. The requested relief sought herein is moot.

  • Hearing

    Nov 10, 2020

  • Judge

    Dept. 6

  • County

    Nevada County, CA

ALEJANDRO PULIDO VS BLUEMERCURY, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

PRELIMINARY COMMENTS: Plaintiff states in his opposition that “Labor Code §§ 98.6(a) and 6310(a) prohibit any ‘person,’ including OHP, and not only an employer from discriminating against a plaintiff for exercising their right of petition.” (Opposition, p. 2:27-28, fn. 2.) The Court believes that this is an incorrect reading of these Labor Codes. These statutes protect employees from retaliation by their employer or any person acting on behalf of the employer.

  • Hearing

    Nov 10, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

DAVID CARTER VS ZUMA PARTNERS F I, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

Procedural Issue As a preliminary matter, Carter submitted a single application for right to attach orders, listing all Defendants in an attachment to the application. This is improper. A separate application is required for each Defendant. While the Judicial Council form is not mandatory, Carter used the form and it clearly provides spaces for the listing of the “Defendant” in the singular form.

  • Hearing

    Nov 10, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

BERG VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO

The trial court did not make findings that a nexus existed between the emergency situation created by the COVID-19 pandemic, and the purported need to delay preliminary examination, such as by balancing due process interests in timely preliminary examinations against specific risks from pandemic.

  • Hearing

    Nov 10, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

SOFIA VERGARA VS NICHOLAS LOEB ET AL

· Third Cause of Action—Breach of Contract o Issue 5: Vergara is entitled to judgment on the third cause of action given that Loeb breached the form directive by unilaterally creating the “Emma and Isabella Louisiana Trust No. 1 (the “Louisiana Trust”) · Second Cause of Action—Permanent Injunction o Issue 6: Vergara is entitled to a permanent injunction enjoining Loeb from breaching the directive “by making any use of the Louisiana Trust or engaging in any other means to seek unilateral control of the Pre-embryos

  • Hearing

    Nov 10, 2020

WILLIAM POWERS, JR. V. DONALD JENSEN, ET AL.

On May 30, 2017, the plaintiffs filed an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order and issuance of an OSC re preliminary 7 The Court takes judicial notice of the judgment filed on July 9, 2019, and all other court records referenced herein. (Evid. Code, § 452(d).) injunction. (RJN, Ex. 2.) On June 29, 2017, the Court (Hon. Donald G. Umhofer) held an evidentiary hearing on the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction, which was denied.

  • Hearing

    Nov 10, 2020

DALLAS WATSON VS. THE JONES FINANCIAL COMPANIES LLLP

The Court in granting preliminary approval also ordered Plaintiffs to file an amended pleading the would include the exact same proposed class definitions used in the moving papers seeking preliminary approval, because the Court noted that the class definition in the original pleading was not identical to the class definition provided in the moving papers.

  • Hearing

    Nov 10, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

BERG VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO

The trial court did not make findings that a nexus existed between the emergency situation created by the COVID-19 pandemic, and the purported need to delay preliminary examination, such as by balancing due process interests in timely preliminary examinations against specific risks from pandemic.

  • Hearing

    Nov 10, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

GEORGE STEPHAN, ET AL. VS LISA ANN BARKETT, ET AL.

Electronic Filing As a preliminary matter, the Court reminds the parties that “[e]lectronic documents must be electronically filed in PDF, text searchable format when technologically feasible without impairment of the document’s image.” (First Amended General Order re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil, 5/3/19.) Any failure to comply with this aspect of the First Amended General Order in the future may result in the pleading at issue being stricken.

  • Hearing

    Nov 10, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SCOTT LAMBERT VS PATRICK GOLDBERG MCMAHON, ET AL.

On February 28, 2020, the court entered a formal order granting the receivership and a related preliminary injunction. On or about March 4, 2020, Receiver posted a $10,000 receiver’s bond and a $1,000 preliminary injunction bond. On March 5, 2020, Lambert filed a motion for appointment of appraisers. Defendants and Cross-Complainants filed an opposition, and Lambert filed a reply. On August 20, 2020, Receiver filed a “response” to Lambert’s reply. On March 27, 2020, Receiver filed an initial inventory.

  • Hearing

    Nov 10, 2020

TIAA, FSC VS JAMES LASOTA, ET AL.

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT BACKGROUND: On April 9, 2019, Plaintiff TIAA, FSC dba Everbank commenced this action against James Lasota and California State Franchise Tax Board for (1) equitable subrogation; (2) declaratory relief; and (3) preliminary and permanent injunctive relief.

  • Hearing

    Nov 10, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

BMO HARRIS BANK N.A., A NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATION VS NBA AUTOMOTIVE, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

The successful plaintiff may obtain a preliminary injunction containing the same provisions as a TRO that remains in effect until the property is seized by the levying officer.[3] CCP §513.010(c). The court may also issue a “turnover order” directing the defendant to transfer possession of the property to the plaintiff (See Mandatory Form CD-120). The order must notify the defendant that failure to comply may subject him or her to contempt of court. CCP §512.070.

  • Hearing

    Nov 10, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

  « first    1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ... 400     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.