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

76-100 of 10000 results

SCANLAN VS BORTHWICK

As a preliminary matter, the Opposition papers were tardy, despite an order granting ex parte relief to allow additional time for same. However, in light of the seriousness of the sanctions claimed here, the Court has elected to consider the tardy opposition.

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2020

INIGUEZ VS JENSEN MEAT CO A CORP [E-FILE]

The court grants the preliminary approval motion and will sign the proposed order submitted with the moving papers. Counsel should attend the hearing prepared to discuss future dates to be filled in on the order.

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

APRIL C. MONTGOMERY VS NANCY JEAN JONES, ET AL.

As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff’s deceit cause of action improperly alleges the separate causes of action for intentional misrepresentation and fraud by concealment as a single cause of action. Combining these two causes of action renders the cause of action as a whole uncertain, and Plaintiff must instead plead them as separate causes of action. Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ demurrer to the 7th cause of action is sustained with leave to amend.

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2020

INIGUEZ VS JENSEN MEAT CO A CORP [E-FILE]

The court grants the preliminary approval motion and will sign the proposed order submitted with the moving papers. Counsel should attend the hearing prepared to discuss future dates to be filled in on the order.

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS. BOARD OF PAROLE HEARINGS

The Ingebretsen family's request, however, does not authorize the CCDA to seek an injunction prohibiting Respondent from applying SB 394 in other cases. Victims in other cases involving LWOP sentences under Prop. 115 have not requested the CCDA's assistance. Moreover, the VBOR does not broadly authorize district attorneys to engage in public interest litigation or other civil matters untethered to particular victims.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

KEJET, INC. VS MARTIN/PRICHARD

Preliminary Observations These motions represent a considerable failure by the attorneys to meet and confer properly. While some of the topics in today’s rulings are genuinely contested, a number of the points covered are expressly or implicitly uncontroversial, and should have been handled simply by amendment or stipulation without bringing them before the Court.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

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

    Oct 23, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

SAADEDDINE A EL-GHALI VS MATTHEW BARCH, ET AL.

On 5/3/19, Plaintiff filed his complaint for nuisance, permanent injunction and declaratory relief. On 5/10/19, Plaintiff recorded a notice of pendency of action (lis pendens). On 6/4/19, Defendants, while representing themselves, filed their answer to the complaint and a cross-complaint for quiet title based on adverse possession. In July 2019, Defendants substituted in counsel. On 12/24/19, Defendants substituted in their current counsel.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

JEROLD LIU VS PI JU SHUN, ET AL.

The undisputed evidence shows that Plaintiff is likely to suffer financial harm if the preliminary injunction is not issued. As such, the balance of harms favors Plaintiff. Conclusion Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction is granted. A bond is required when a preliminary injunction is issued. (CCP § 529(a).)

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

ESPERANZA MOLINA VS FOREST LAWN MORTUARY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

The motion accordingly is granted, and defendant is required to serve responses without a preliminary statement or preliminary objections. As to the remaining objections as to each requests, these do not appear appropriate, given the ability to qualify responses. The opposition does not attempt to justify any of the particular objections, but argues that defendant provided substantive responses despite the assertion of objections.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

SUSAN HARMAN VS GORDON H SASAKI, ET AL.

Sasaki et al. (19STCV32651) TENTATIVE RULING: As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that plaintiff’s opposition papers were untimely filed. Based on the hearing date, the deadline to file and serve the oppositions to the demurrer and motion to strike was October 2, 2020. (CCP § 1005(b).) Plaintiff served and filed the oppositions on October 5, 2020. Plaintiff apparently failed to account for the Court holiday on October 12, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

CESAR ROMERO ET AL VS FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY ET AL

Instead, title insurance protects against the possibility that liens or other encumbrances exist, even though they were missed in the title search or the preliminary title report. [Citation.] A title insurer issues its policies on the basis of, and in reliance on, its own investigation into recorded instruments, which should impart constructive notice. [Citation.] The records on which a title insurer relies are generally public records concerning the status of title. [Citation.]

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

SAUL ARREGUIN ET AL VS THAIWADHANA KASAORN

As a preliminary matter, the Court reminds Plaintiff 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.) Here, Plaintiff’s application for entry of judgment filed on August 6, 2020 is not text searchable.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

COREEN GONZALEZ VS CITY OF MONTEREY PARK ET AL

Merits – Motion Served Upon Plaintiff, Individually – As a preliminary issue, Plaintiff filed a sur-reply as to the instant motion on August 14, 2020. The Court did not authorize such a filing and will thus strike the sur-reply.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

FCMT, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS DOT DOT SMILE, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

If the bond is not posted within that time, the writ will dissolve automatically. GIVEN THE CORONAVIRUS CRISIS, AND TO PROMOTE APPROPRIATE SOCIAL DISTANCING, UNTIL FURTHER ORDERED, DEPARTMENT D IS ENCOURAGING AUDIO OR VIDEO APPEARANCES Please make arrangements in advance if you wish to appear via LACourtConnect by visiting www.lacourt.org, and scheduling a remote appearance.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

MEDSCI INTERNATIONAL LLC VS. BIOATLA LLC

As a preliminary matter, MedSci argues that the motion was not timely filed and served. The Court disagrees. Counting backward from the hearing, excluding the day of the hearing, the motion had to have been served by August 9, 2020 (Sunday). CCP § 12c. Pursuant to CCP § 1010.6(a)(4)(B), two court days are added to the notice period for electronic service. Counting backward two court days from Sunday, August 9, 2020 equates to the motion having to be served by Thursday, August 6, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

CESAR ROMERO ET AL VS FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY ET AL

Instead, title insurance protects against the possibility that liens or other encumbrances exist, even though they were missed in the title search or the preliminary title report. [Citation.] A title insurer issues its policies on the basis of, and in reliance on, its own investigation into recorded instruments, which should impart constructive notice. [Citation.] The records on which a title insurer relies are generally public records concerning the status of title. [Citation.]

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

DAMARIS BENN VS GATEWAY PLAZA LLC ET AL

El Pollo Inka has presented prima facie evidence that it is not the owner of the restaurant where the incident occurred and is not affiliated with the owner and thus has made a preliminary showing that it has a meritorious defense. The court finds that the default was entered as the result of extrinsic mistake of El Pollo Inka’s personnel, and that El Pollo Inka acted with sufficient diligence in seeking to vacate the default.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

WILLIAM MCCHESNEY, ET AL VS. SECURITY PAVING COMPANY, INC.

Merits – As a preliminary matter, Caltrans has conceded in its opposition briefing that its request for court reporter costs in the amount of $33,500.73 is unsupported by law and withdraws such request. The only amounts at issue are thus deposition costs in the amount of $3,775 and witness costs in the amount of $189,875.13.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

MONTEREY BAY AVIATION INC. V CITY OF WATSONVILLE ET AL.

APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION The application for a preliminary injunction is denied. The Court’s broad discretion in ruling on an application for a preliminary injunctio must be exercised in light of (1) a reasonable probability of success on the merits; and (2) wh will suffer greater injury? The greater plaintiff’s showing on one, the less must be shown on th other to support an injunction.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

T. C., AN INDIVIDUAL, BY AND THROUGH HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM, M.C. VS GRIFFITH PARK HEALTHCARE CENTER, BUSINESS FORM UNKNOWN, ET AL.

As a preliminary matter, as plaintiff argues in the opposition, the demurrer is 19 pages, in violation of Cal. Rule of Court 3.1113(d). The Court considers the entirety of the demurrer but admonishes defendants to adhere to the page limits set forth in Cal. Rule of Court 3.1113(d) in future motions. I.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JONATHAN SKLAR ET AL VS JASON CHIN ET AL

On 28 December 2018, defendant Le filed form ELEC NP (Nonprofit Certificate of Election to Wind Up and Dissolve) with the California Secretary of State falsely declaring that a majority of members elected to dissolve TRI when no such election actually occurred. (Complaint, ¶19.) Plaintiffs were not consulted about defendant Le’s intent to wind up and dissolve TRI and defendant Le undertook such action without the consent of TRI’s board of directors or even a majority of its members. (Id.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

MELBERT MAGPUGAY V. HARBOR ELECTRONICS, INC., ET AL.

The administrator will mail the notice packet within 24 calendar days of preliminary approval, after updating addresses using the National Change of Address Database. Any notice packets returned as undeliverable will be re-mailed to any forwarding address provided or located through skip tracing. These notice procedures are appropriate and are approved. VIII. Conclusion and Order Subject to the above modification to the class notice, plaintiff’s motion for preliminary approval is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

HECTOR LUNA V. TRIPLE CANOPY, INC., ET AL.

CGC-18- 571235), have joined the plaintiff herein in moving for preliminary and final approval.

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

CHRISTOPHER ONTIVEROS V. BAKER CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION, INC., 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 finds that the settlement is fair and reasonable for purposes of final approval. III.

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

  « 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.