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

26-50 of 10000 results

ELLIS VS. UDR, INC.

Plaintiffs Sasha Ellis and Amy Searle's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class and Representative Action Settlement Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement is CONTINUED to January 15, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. in Department CX104 to permit the parties to respond to the following concerns. Any supplemental briefing shall be filed on or before January 6, 2021.

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

PATRICIA A. MAY VS DENNIS L JONES

Plaintiffs filed a Complaint on February 27, 2020 alleging eight (8) causes of action sounding in: (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (3) Fraud; (4) Conversion; (5) Financial Elder Abuse; (6) Common Count; (7) Right to Attach Order and Writ of Attachment; and (8) Preliminary Injunction.

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

FACHUAN BAI, ET AL. VS PARK PLACE EB5, LP, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have established that they are entitled to a preliminary injunction.

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

GRACE COMMUNITY CHURCH OF THE VALLEY, ET AL. VS ALEJANDRO VILLANUEVA, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SHERIFF OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

Plaintiffs allege that nevertheless, the County of Los Angeles has initiated legal action against the Church, seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, which issues are currently pending before Los Angeles Superior Court in another proceeding. The FAC alleges that the orders banning gatherings are not based on a real health threat to warrant such a restraint, and that the orders against it constitute an illegitimate misuse of power.

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

MR BUILD HOME IMPROVEMENT COMPANY D.B.A. MR BUILD SOLAR ELECTRIC VS CALIN KEELEY

Plaintiff filed its initial Complaint on February 22, 2019, and thereafter filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on May 10, 2019, alleging ten causes of action for (1) Conversion, (2) Breach of Contract, (3) Property Damages, (4) Trespass to Chattel, (5) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (”IIED”), (6) Slander Per Se, (7) Libel, (8) Fraud, (9) ‘Tenacious’ Interference with Existing Contract, (10) Injunction – TRO.

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ARSHAK ALLEN AGAKHANYAN VS ALBERT BARSEGHIAN, ET AL.

of record or beneficially, or the holder of voting trust certificates at the time of the transaction or any part thereof of which plaintiff complains or that plaintiff's shares or voting trust certificates thereafter devolved upon plaintiff by operation of law from a holder who was a holder at the time of the transaction or any part thereof complained of; provided, that any shareholder who does not meet these requirements may nevertheless be allowed in the discretion of the court to maintain the action on a preliminary

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

PETITIONER VS CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS

The victim was particularly vulnerable at the time of the record request and denial by the City because he was scheduled to testify against criminal defendant Meraz at a preliminary hearing. The public interest in protecting a vulnerable crime victim outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the information to Petitioner. Accordingly, the City established the safety exception of Gov. Code §6254(f)(A)(2) applies.

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

DO WOO KIM, ET AL. VS HYUN JONG HAN, ET AL.

Pastor Han and those aligned with his interests, acting through Church, obtained a preliminary injunction against the Kim Brothers in the related case; the Kim Brothers were subsequently unsuccessful at obtaining a preliminary injunction against the Han Parties in the lead case. Discussion I.

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

KAI HOU LIANG VS JI LI

PRELIMINARY COMMENTS: The Court previously addressed taxing this memorandum of costs in its 11/2/2020 minute order. At that time, the Court explained: “Defendant and Cross-Complainants Ji Li and Hollywood Garden, LLC attach a copy of this Memorandum of Costs served to them on September 17, 2020 as Exhibit A to the motion, which seeks accrued interest in the amount of $19,172.41. (Motion, Ex. A, p. 1, ¶ 3.) The memorandum of costs was never filed with the Court before the instant motion was filed.

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ARANDA VS. TEKWORKS, INC.

Plaintiffs Fernando Aranda and Jose Paz's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement is CONTINUED to January 15, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. in Department CX104 to permit the parties to respond to the following concerns. Any supplemental briefing shall be filed on or before January 6, 2021.

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

BARRAGAN VS. TAILGATE PRINTING INC.

Plaintiff Gabriela Barragan and Victoria Hernandez Ortega's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement Motion continued to 12/18/2020 at 9:00 a.m. in Department CX104.

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

DAVIS VS. PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY

Plaintiff Delfina Medina's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement The Court has reviewed the supplemental briefing filed in response to the October 30, 2020 minute order. The motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement is GRANTED as to the parties’ Amended Joint Stipulation of Class Settlement and Release. (See ROA 192, Ex. 2.) The Court also approves the notice, opt-out and dispute forms attached to ROA 192.

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

ARTURO REYES V. IVARY MANAGEMENT CO., ET AL.

At preliminary approval, the Court found that the proposed settlement provides a fair and reasonable compromise to plaintiff’s claims, and that the PAGA settlement is genuine, meaningful, and fair to those affected. It finds no reason to deviate from these findings now, especially considering that there are no objections. The Court thus finds that the settlement is fair and reasonable for purposes of final approval. III.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

IN THE MATTER OF JANICE ZORA RYAN

Charles Ryan (1/3 of the residue) $96,250.75 Kelly Hayes $86,250.75 + $10,000.00 (preliminary distribution) Shaun Jones $86,250.75 + $10,000.00 (preliminary distribution) Discuss distribution and approve.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

TAYLOR VS MENDOCINO FARMS

HEARING ON MOTION TO/FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT FILED BY RYAN TAYLOR * TENTATIVE RULING: * Hearing required. Plaintiff seeks preliminary approval of a class-action settlement with Mendocino Farms, LLC. The complaint alleges that Mendocino Farms failed to redeem gift cards with a value of less than $10 for cash, in violation of the “Gift Card Act,” specifically Civil Code section 1749.5(b)(2), and other authorities. A.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

TIERNAN VS. KALIN

The Court denied the temporary restraining order but issued an order to show cause ("OSC") directing Defendant to show cause why a preliminary injunction for that relief should not issue. Defendant opposed the preliminary injunction request. The parties each presented declarations, among other things, offering substantially conflicting evidence as to whether Mr. Kalin had been riding his bicycle over Mr. Tiernan's property, was using Calle Arroyo to access Mt.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

CITY OF SOUTH GATE, A PUBLIC ENTITY VS APRIL MANCINI, ET AL.

Mancini were not relatively free from negligence because no reasonably prudent person would believe that the imposition of a preliminary injunction would cause a stay of the entire case. Moreover, JAH/Ms. Mancini are not excused from its own responsibilities to stay apprised on the status of their own case. The Motion to set aside the September 25, 2020 Discovery Order is DENIED. As argued in Opposition, section 473 does not apply.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

EVANS HOTELS LLC VS TELESONIC VOICE AND DATA SOLUTIONS INC

Preliminary Matters Because a cross-complaint is treated as an independent action, Unify's motion to dismiss the FAXC is not a motion for reconsideration and thus is not governed under CCP section 1008(b). Telesonic's objections to Rittenberg's declaration are overruled. As an overarching matter, although Rittenberg was a commercial partner prior to January 1, 2017, she also attests she is familiar with the partner registration process and the Unify systems designed to record partner registration.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

RIOS VS FCA US LLC

Preliminary Matters Plaintiffs' objections to Jeffrey C. Schmid's declaration are overruled. Discussion Defendants move to tax certain costs claimed by plaintiffs in their memoranda of costs. "If items on a memorandum of costs appear to be proper charges on their face, those items are prima facie evidence that the costs, expenses, and services are proper and necessarily incurred. The burden then shifts to the objecting party to show them to be unnecessary or unreasonable."

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

LUHRSEN VS. PAS MRO, INC.

The Court has reviewed all papers, including the supplemental papers, filed in support of Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of the class action and PAGA settlement and is inclined to GRANT approval subject to the following to be discussed at the hearing: 1. The proposed Notice must be amended to accurately reflect the amounts (not to exceed) sought for attorney fees ($16,666), and attorney costs ($3,500). 2.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, A CHARTERED COUNTY AND POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; VS JUAN ORDORICA, ET AL.

“The court concluded the term ‘made’ encompassed the planning, preliminary discussions, and drawing of plans and specification.” (Ibid.) “[T]he term ‘financially interested’ in section 1090 cannot be interpreted in a restricted and technical manner.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

ROSS V. VALLEY FINE FOODS, INC.

Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action and PAGA Settlement, Provisional Certification of Class, and for Leave to Amend TENTATIVE RULING The motions are granted subject to the following: Ultimately, the court is considering approving less than the proposed 38% attorneys’ fees request and the $9500.00 enhancement payment to the only named plaintiff.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

DALEY VS KLUNK

As a preliminary matter, the Cross-Complaint does not plead fraud with specificity. The allegations are vague as to who said what to whom. In addition, the allegations supporting the fraud claim are the same as the allegations supporting the breach of contract claim. Cross-complainant is alleging both breach of contract and tort claims arising out of same set of facts.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

COURTOIS VS. BANK OF AMERICA NA

Plaintiff, by way of the first amended complaint (the "FAC"), seeks, inter alia: (1) an injunction preventing Defendant from conducting a nonjudicial foreclosure sale of her property located at 2360 Hosp Way #230, Carlsbad, CA 92008 (the "Property"); and (2) a judicial determination as to Defendant's legal right to collect upon the note or enforce the deed of trust.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

RIDGEROCK TOOLS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS BERGAMON, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

PRELIMINARY COMMENTS: As indicated below, the Court is sustaining the demurrer to the second cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty because it is already encompassed in the first cause of action for breach of loyalty. However, the Court wonders why defendants bothered to waste their time and their clients’ money by demurring to this cause of action. True, Plaintiff gains nothing by keeping this cause of action in. Equally true, Defendants gain nothing by removing this cause of action.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 400     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.