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

326-350 of 10000 results

MIDWAY VENTURE LLC VS COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

The Order to Show Cause (ROA # 1, 36, 38, 40, 49) for a Preliminary injunction by Plaintiffs MIDWAY VENTURE LLC dba PACERS SHOWGIRLS / PACERS SHOWGIRLS INTERNATIONAL, PETER BALOV, F - 12 ENTERTAINMENT GROUP INC. dba CHEETAHS, and RICH BUONANTONY ("Plaintiffs") against Defendants COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, WILMA J.

  • Hearing

    Dec 15, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

VIRGINIA SMITH VS MONICA RIVERA, ET AL.

A liquidation order and injunction is attached to the notice of stay. The liquidation order and injunction was signed by Judge Pamela Meyerson of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois on June 10, 2020. Judge Meyerson found Gateway Insurance Company to be insolvent. (Order, pp. 1-2.) Over sixty days have passed since Judge Meyerson’s order and, thus, the Court rules on the merits of the motion.

  • Hearing

    Dec 15, 2020

MIDWAY VENTURE LLC VS COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

The Order to Show Cause (ROA # 1, 36, 38, 40, 49) for a Preliminary injunction by Plaintiffs MIDWAY VENTURE LLC dba PACERS SHOWGIRLS / PACERS SHOWGIRLS INTERNATIONAL, PETER BALOV, F - 12 ENTERTAINMENT GROUP INC. dba CHEETAHS, and RICH BUONANTONY ("Plaintiffs") against Defendants COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, WILMA J.

  • Hearing

    Dec 15, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

BRADSHAW V. SORRENTINO

He declares that he has practiced extensively in the field of construction defect litigation for 20 years, and that based on his knowledge and experience, believes that the $11,000 settlement is well within the ballpark as contemplated in Tech-Bilt, and that he believes the settlement represents payment of more than double of Plaintiffs’ preliminary estimate of cost of repairs with respect to issues asserted to be attributable to Rocksteady’s scope of work.

  • Hearing

    Dec 15, 2020

J. BENJAMIN LARA CHAVEZ V. SMART72, INC.

This action has now been resolved pending preliminary approval of the parties’ Settlement.

  • Hearing

    Dec 15, 2020

LORI THOMAS VS THROTTLE SYNDICATE, ET AL.

RELIEF REQUESTED Demurrer to the Complaint (20CHCV000255) · 1st Cause of Action: Breach of Contract · 2nd Cause of Action: Fraud SUMMARY OF ACTION On October 1, 2020, Lori Thomas filed a complaint against Throttle Syndicate, Ryan Pursley, and Todd Ford for Conversion, Breach of Contract, Intentional Interference with Prospective Advantage, Unfair Competition, Fraud, Unjust Enrichment, Declaratory Relief, and Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary and Permanent Injunction (19CHCV00767, lead case).

  • Hearing

    Dec 15, 2020

YOSSI SABAG VS FCA US LLC

As a preliminary matter, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request for a multiplier. (Motion, pgs. 12-15.) The Court finds there is no basis to award a multiplier because the time and skill of counsel, as well as, the contingent nature of the representation, are compensated with fees.

  • Hearing

    Dec 15, 2020

MIDWAY VENTURE LLC VS COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

The Order to Show Cause (ROA # 1, 36, 38, 40, 49) for a Preliminary injunction by Plaintiffs MIDWAY VENTURE LLC dba PACERS SHOWGIRLS / PACERS SHOWGIRLS INTERNATIONAL, PETER BALOV, F - 12 ENTERTAINMENT GROUP INC. dba CHEETAHS, and RICH BUONANTONY ("Plaintiffs") against Defendants COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, WILMA J.

  • Hearing

    Dec 15, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

MONTECRISTO #1 LIVING TRUST UTD 9/24/2015, ET AL. V. LAURA JEAN NARY, ET AL.

Nature of Proceedings: Motion for Preliminary Injunction (2) Tentative

  • Hearing

    Dec 14, 2020

MONTECRISTO #1 LIVING TRUST UTD 9/24/2015, ET AL. V. LAURA JEAN NARY, ET AL.

Nature of Proceedings: Motion for Preliminary Injunction (2) CASE: Montecristo #1 Living Trust UTD 9/24/2015, et al. v. Laura Jean Nary, et al., Case No. 20CV03042 (Judge Sterne) HEARING DATE: December 14, 2020 MATTER: Motion for Preliminary Injunction ATTORNEYS: John J.

  • Hearing

    Dec 14, 2020

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA V. SUMMERLAND MARKET, INC., ET AL.

Background: This action was commenced on December 27, 2018, by the filing of a complaint for injunction, civil penalties, and other equitable relief, by the District Attorney’s Office on behalf of the People of the State of California. It relates to the operation of a gas station by Summerland Market, Inc. upon property located at 2285 Lillie Avenue, in Summerland. As set forth in the complaint, plaintiff seeks “to enjoin Defendants Summerland Market, Inc.

  • Hearing

    Dec 14, 2020

SANDRA NORLUND, TRUSTEE OF THE NORLUND FAMILY TRUST DATED SEPTEMBER 15, 2000 VS RICHARD L. NORLUND, ET AL.

The Preliminary Title Report dated April 2, 2019 is approved. Assignment of Note/Deed of Trust. Immediately subsequent to the recordation of the Deed of Trust, Richard L.

  • Hearing

    Dec 14, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

SILVIA CHAVEZ VS. TELEDIRECT COMMUNICATIONS INC

Conclusion The Court grants preliminary approval of the Agreement subject to the revision of the class notice. Plaintiffs shall file a notice of entry of the order granting preliminary approval in each of the Actions. The date of the joint final fairness hearing will be determined at the preliminary approval hearing.

  • Hearing

    Dec 14, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

NATALIE TREJO VS. TELEDIRECT COMMUNICATIONS INC

Conclusion The Court grants preliminary approval of the Agreement subject to the revision of the class notice. Plaintiffs shall file a notice of entry of the order granting preliminary approval in each of the Actions. The date of the joint final fairness hearing will be determined at the preliminary approval hearing.

  • Hearing

    Dec 14, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

JOSEPH DINGLASAN VS RUTH JACKSON, ET AL.

Uncertainty As a preliminary matter, the Complaint, as a whole, failed to set out sufficient facts. It is unclear from Plaintiff’s Complaint what Defendants’ alleged fraudulent act are and what fact support the other causes of action. Upon review by the Court of the Complaint, the facts alleged are insufficient and unintelligible to survive demurrer.

  • Hearing

    Dec 14, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

JENNIFER ALTAMIRANO VS. TELEDIRECT COMMUNICATIONS INC

Conclusion The Court grants preliminary approval of the Agreement subject to the revision of the class notice. Plaintiffs shall file a notice of entry of the order granting preliminary approval in each of the Actions. The date of the joint final fairness hearing will be determined at the preliminary approval hearing.

  • Hearing

    Dec 14, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

PHANICHKUL VS YENG

"Preliminary negotiations or an agreement for future negotiations are not the functional equivalent of a valid, subsisting agreement." Kruse, supra, 202 Cal. App. 3d at 59. Defendants' facts show that there was not yet an offer capable of acceptance. Thus, they met their initial burden of production. Plaintiff sufficiently met his burden to demonstrate a material controversy exists regarding whether a contract was formed between himself and Steve Yeng.

  • Hearing

    Dec 14, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

PHANICHKUL VS YENG

"Preliminary negotiations or an agreement for future negotiations are not the functional equivalent of a valid, subsisting agreement." Kruse, supra, 202 Cal. App. 3d at 59. Defendants' facts show that there was not yet an offer capable of acceptance. Thus, they met their initial burden of production. Plaintiff sufficiently met his burden to demonstrate a material controversy exists regarding whether a contract was formed between himself and Steve Yeng.

  • Hearing

    Dec 14, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

PHANICHKUL VS YENG

"Preliminary negotiations or an agreement for future negotiations are not the functional equivalent of a valid, subsisting agreement." Kruse, supra, 202 Cal. App. 3d at 59. Defendants' facts show that there was not yet an offer capable of acceptance. Thus, they met their initial burden of production. Plaintiff sufficiently met his burden to demonstrate a material controversy exists regarding whether a contract was formed between himself and Steve Yeng.

  • Hearing

    Dec 14, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

PHANICHKUL VS YENG

"Preliminary negotiations or an agreement for future negotiations are not the functional equivalent of a valid, subsisting agreement." Kruse, supra, 202 Cal. App. 3d at 59. Defendants' facts show that there was not yet an offer capable of acceptance. Thus, they met their initial burden of production. Plaintiff sufficiently met his burden to demonstrate a material controversy exists regarding whether a contract was formed between himself and Steve Yeng.

  • Hearing

    Dec 14, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

C SHAWN SKILLERN MD VS. LI SHENG KONG MD

The Second Appellate District has held that "injunction is a remedy and not a cause of action." (Venice Coalition to Preserve Unique Community Character v. City of Los Angeles (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 42, 54.) Dr. Guo is given leave to re-plead the allegations in the fourth cause of action to the extent that such allegations are relevant to other causes of action or to the prayer for relief. Overrule as to the eighth cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty. Dr. Guo pleads that Dr. Kong conspired with Dr.

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2020

C SHAWN SKILLERN MD VS. LI SHENG KONG MD

The Second Appellate District has held that "injunction is a remedy and not a cause of action." (Venice Coalition to Preserve Unique Community Character v. City of Los Angeles (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 42, 54.) Dr. Li is given leave to re-plead the allegations in the third cause of action to the extent that such allegations are relevant to other causes of action or to the prayer for relief. Overrule as to the sixth cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty. Dr. Li pleads that Dr. Kong conspired with Dr.

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2020

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

    Dec 11, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

PENCE VS. SOBER LIVING BY THE SEA, INC.

The estimated average payment must be provided for preliminary approval, to help the court to determine whether the settlement is fair and reasonable, but if the high and low estimated payments are not available at this time, they must be provided in the motion for final approval. The estimated Net Settlement Amount is not contained in the Motion, the Agreement, or the Class Notice.

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2020

DAVID R. WELLS VS JOHN W. MARTIN, ET AL.

Specifically, Defendants seek twenty-one and a half (21.5) hours for preliminary research of Anti-SLAPP law, Civil Code 47(b) privilege, and for drafting internal research memorandum summarizing counsel’s findings. The Court finds that twelve (12) hours for preliminary research into Anti-SLAPP law and related privileges is reasonable considering counsel’s experience and the claims at issue. Accordingly, nine and a half (9.5) hours, or $4,750, shall be discounted from the total award.

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

  « first    1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ... 400     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.