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

426-450 of 10000 results

CALIFORNIA RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS CALIFORNIA OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY

Balance of Hardships In determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction, the second factor which a trial court examines is the interim harm that plaintiff is likely to sustain if the injunction is denied as compared to the harm that the defendant is likely to suffer if the court grants a preliminary injunction. Donahue Schriber Realty Group, Inc. v. Nu Creation Outreach, (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 1171, 1177.

  • Hearing

    Dec 08, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

IRMA CASILLAS VS SITA YANAMADALA, MD, ET AL.

Based on Foster Farms’ alleged misconduct, Plaintiffs, among other things, seek an injunction to enjoin Foster Farms from making such misreprentations in the future. (Id. at ¶ 61.) The court notes that Plaintiffs’ fifth cause of action relies solely on advertising; that is, Plaintiffs’ claim does not rely on any labeling defect. (Id. at ¶¶ 50-62; Opp., 1:9-17, 4:8-15.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 08, 2020

BILLY O. UMAR, ET AL. VS FOSTER FARMS INC, ET AL.

Based on Foster Farms’ alleged misconduct, Plaintiffs, among other things, seek an injunction to enjoin Foster Farms from making such misreprentations in the future. (Id. at ¶ 61.) The court notes that Plaintiffs’ fifth cause of action relies solely on advertising; that is, Plaintiffs’ claim does not rely on any labeling defect. (Id. at ¶¶ 50-62; Opp., 1:9-17, 4:8-15.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 08, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

HANSEN V MORSE

FIRST AMENDED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTIO SETTLEMENT The CMC and Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement are continue to February 8, 2021 at 8:30AM in Dept. 5. 1

  • Hearing

    Dec 08, 2020

MARK'S ENGINE COMPANY NO. 28 RESTAURANT, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES-DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, A PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.

Balance of Hardships In determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction, the second factor which a trial court examines is the interim harm that plaintiff is likely to sustain if the injunction is denied as compared to the harm that the defendant is likely to suffer if the court grants a preliminary injunction. Donahue Schriber Realty Group, Inc. v. Nu Creation Outreach, (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 1171, 1177.

  • Hearing

    Dec 08, 2020

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

BACKGROUND: Plaintiff the People of the State of California (the “People”) bring this action for injunction and civil penalties against defendants Summerland Markets, Inc. (“SMI”) and Elian Hanna (“Hanna”) for allegedly violating the laws and regulations related to the operation of underground storage tanks and the handling and management of hazardous materials and waste. SMI operates a gas station and mini-market located at 2285 Lillie Avenue, Summerland, California 93067.

  • Hearing

    Dec 07, 2020

KEVIN RUSSELL NARY, ET AL. V. MARICEL GABRIELA HINES, ET AL.

Nature of Proceedings: Case Management Conference; Motion Preliminary Injunction; OSC Preliminary Injunction Tentative

  • Hearing

    Dec 07, 2020

KEVIN RUSSELL NARY, ET AL. V. MARICEL GABRIELA HINES, ET AL.

Nature of Proceedings: Case Management Conference; Motion Preliminary Injunction; OSC Preliminary Injunction This matter is on calendar to address the matters contained in the Court's minute order of the hearing on 11/2/20. Appearance required.

  • Hearing

    Dec 07, 2020

AFFINITO VS. AFFINITO

And while the Court will not presume to bind the new judge who ultimately hears defendant’s pending motion in 2021, the Court’s preliminary assessment is that there is no jurisdictional bar to the new judge exercising the inherent judicial authority to decide the issues newly raised in defendant’s pending motion. (See, Marshall v. County of San Diego (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1095, 1104-07; Nieto v. Blue Shield of California Life & Health Ins. Co. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 60, 71-74; Abassi v.

  • Hearing

    Dec 07, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

AMERICREDIT FINANCIAL VS. ERICA MCGRUE

A finding of “probable validity” is preliminary and would not become final until the court issues a final determination as to which party is entitled to possession of the property at a later proceeding. (See Code of Civil Procedure section 512.040(b).) If the Defendant wishes to contest the preliminary determination of “probable validity” of Plaintiff’s claim, the Defendant shall follow the “General Instructions for Contesting Tentative Rulings set forth on page 1 above.

  • Hearing

    Dec 07, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

ROSA MARIA AVILA VS BRACKEN ELECTRIC, INC.

Compelling Compliance As a preliminary matter, the court notes that only James was personally served with the Subpoena. (Mot., Exh. A.) Dana was served by U.S. Mail, which is insufficient to obligate her to produce the documents requested in the Subpoena. (Mot., Exh. A; CCP § 2020.220(c).) As such, the court’s analysis focuses solely on whether Plaintiff may compel James to comply with the Subpoena. Plaintiff met and conferred with James to inquire about his nonappearance. (CCP § 2025.450(b)(2).)

  • Hearing

    Dec 07, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

DOUGLAS CRUZ VS NATHAN BARAJAS

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings As a preliminary matter, the court notes that Defendant satisfied the meet and confer requirement. Plaintiff has not responded to Defendant’s efforts, which has resulted in the instant motion. (Goltz Decl., ¶¶ 2-4.) On January 2, 2020, the court granted Defendant’s motion to deem requests for admission admitted.

  • Hearing

    Dec 07, 2020

ANTONIO A. PERALTA, TRUSTEE OF THE PERALTA FAMILY TRUST V. JOSE A.

ANTONIO responds by identifying the Trust, “Grant Deed Dated October 26, 2001,” a particular recorded affidavit of change of trustee, “Grant Deed Dated October 4, 2017,” and “First American Title Company Preliminary Report and related loan documents of Jose A. Peralta, including without limitation [a number of document titles generally lacking dates or further identifying markers],” adding in two responses “Final Title Report” and “emails” to the list of loan documents identified without limitation.

  • Hearing

    Dec 07, 2020

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CA ET AL VS BEVERLY HILLS CENTER FOR

As a preliminary note, Beverly Hills contends that Plaintiff’s motion is procedurally deficient because Plaintiff did not file a separate statement pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345. (Opposition, 8.) In reply, Plaintiff contends that a separate statement was not required because the instant motion does not pertain to one of the seven categories delineated by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345 subdivision (a). (Reply, 3.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 07, 2020

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

    Dec 07, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JIMMY LEE HAYES, III VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

The Court will not write Plaintiff a blank check for whatever injunction relief strikes Plaintiff’s fancy, not least because Defendants have had no notice of the form of that relief and therefore no meaningful opportunity to argue against it. As such, Plaintiff’s request for unspecified injunctive relief is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Dec 07, 2020

LOUIS MAYORGA VS LISA FANCHER

Rice (1) Defendant’s Motion for Stay of Enforcement of Preliminary Injunction Moving Party: Defendant Lisa Fancher Responding Party: Plaintiff Louis Mayorga Ruling: Defendant’s motion for stay of enforcement of the preliminary injunction is denied. Pursuant to Code Civ.

  • Hearing

    Dec 07, 2020

DE MOYA VS REV.COM INC

The Court will sign the [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT - ROA # 109 - as completed, at the hearing of this Motion.

  • Hearing

    Dec 07, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

MARICELA VARGAS VS OCWEN LOAN SERVICING LLC

Analysis Issue Preclusion As a preliminary note, Plaintiff argues that PHH’s entire MSJ is improper because it concerns the same issues already decided on Ocwen’s MSJ and by the Court of Appeal in reviewing the grant of nonsuit in favor of Ocwen. (Opposition, 8-11.) Specifically, Plaintiff argues that PHH’s motion violates Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (f)(2) or, alternatively, the “law of the case” doctrine.

  • Hearing

    Dec 07, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JAVED MIR VS USMAN VAKIL, ET AL.

The Court will not write Plaintiff a blank check for whatever injunction relief strikes Plaintiff’s fancy, not least because Defendants have had no notice of the form of that relief and therefore no meaningful opportunity to argue against it. As such, Plaintiff’s request for unspecified injunctive relief is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Dec 07, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE VS BUT

Plaintiff alleges that “[o]n or about September 7, 2017, Defendants represented in the Preliminary Report Approval that they had read the Preliminary Report and knew of no other matters pertaining to the condition of title other than those stated in the Preliminary Report.” (Complaint at ¶ 47.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

CITY OF ELK GROVE VS. ARNTZ BUILDERS

Preliminary Matters.  CCP 430.41. The Court commends the parties on their successful meet-and-confer discussion, which resulted in the dismissal of former cross-defendant Roebbelen Contracting, Inc.  Roebbelen’s RJN. Roebbelen’s request for judicial notice is superfluous as to Exhibit 1, but the Court appreciates the convenience of having a copy of the First Amended Complaint presented with the opening papers. Roebbelen’s request is denied as to Exhibit 2, and granted as to Exhibits 3 and 4.

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

2009 WELLINGTON ROAD, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS MICHELLE HAGUE, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

Second Cause of Action The LLC’s second cause of action is styled as one for “damages and injunction for wrongful foreclosure.” Hague argues that this cause of action cannot stand because injunction and damages are remedies, not causes of action, and because the LLC has not alleged facts supporting the elements of a wrongful foreclosure claim. The Court disagrees. The LLC is clearly asserting a cause of action for wrongful foreclosure.

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

RAFAEL VICENTE VS GENERAL MOTORS, LLC

PRELIMINARY COMMENT: Plaintiff’s motion and separate statement fail to include page numbers. This not only violates the California Rules of Court, Rule 2.109, but makes it harder for the Court to refer to statements made in Plaintiff’s pleadings. BACKGROUND: This action arises out of warranty obligations relating to a 2012 GMC Acadia vehicle Plaintiff purchased. (Complaint, ¶ 6.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

ADEL TRINIDAD LUZURIAGA VS KURT J KIRCH AND DELMA R KIRCH

Good cause appearing, and plaintiff having filed a duly noticed motion in conformity with the Court’s judgment, the Court orders that following the hearing this date, plaintiff may record the easement by necessity, the easement by implication, the mandatory injunction and the permanent prohibitory injunction.

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

  « first    1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ... 400     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.