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

9976-10000 of 10000 results

ESTATE OF JANE D AYRES

Nature of Proceedings: Petition for Preliminary Distribution

  • Hearing

    Aug 16, 2018

ESTATE OF JANE D AYRES

Nature of Proceedings: Petition for Preliminary Distribution Absent objection, the matter will be approved.

  • Hearing

    Aug 16, 2018

MATTER OF DAVID L SACHS TRUST

Nature of Proceedings: (1) Motion to Consider Respondent's Surreply (2) Petition re Instructions in Life Trust Advances; Preliminary Distribution

  • Hearing

    Aug 16, 2018

RE: OSC RE: NAME AND GENDER CHANGE

If $20,000.00 reserve is needed, Ct will consider approving a preliminary distribution and approve 75% of fees requested. 6. Verified declaration by petitioner to specify whether all charges for legal advertising, bond premiums, probate referee’s services and costs of administration have been paid. LR 7.317 7. Revised, proposed Order as needed relative to the above Notes: A. Court notes Disclaimer filed 9-12-16 by Diosdada Ortiz.

  • Hearing

    Aug 16, 2018

ADELSTEIN VS. BURR

It is similar to language in paragraph 1 of the Camp Declaration. 3 – Technically, when a party files an excerpt from a deposition, he is supposed to include the face page, which would remove any dispute about whether he submitted the final or only a preliminary transcript. (See CRC 3.1116.) However, defendant has failed to establish there is a genuine dispute whether the witness really gave the testimony cited. 4 – Overruled. 5 – Overruled. See number 3. 6 – Overruled.

  • Hearing

    Aug 16, 2018

PET OF ERIC JAMES SMITHWICK

If $20,000.00 reserve is needed, Ct will consider approving a preliminary distribution and approve 75% of fees requested. 6. Verified declaration by petitioner to specify whether all charges for legal advertising, bond premiums, probate referee’s services and costs of administration have been paid. LR 7.317 7. Revised, proposed Order as needed relative to the above Notes: A. Court notes Disclaimer filed 9-12-16 by Diosdada Ortiz.

  • Hearing

    Aug 16, 2018

ALEXANDER VS. CHEVRON STATIONS

SPECIAL SET HEARING ON: FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT SET BY DEPT. 17 * TENTATIVE RULING: * The reasons justifying preliminary approval continue to apply to the motion for final approval. In addition, the experience with class notice, e.g., the minimal number of opt-outs (2) and objections (1) also indicate that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. With respect to the objection received from Mr.

  • Hearing

    Aug 16, 2018

LA CONTENTA INVESTORS LTD V. CALAVERAS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT

In 2012 this Court granted summary adjudication as to those portions of plaintiff’s single cause of action complaint concerning claims for declaratory relief and permanent injunction. CCWD now seeks summary adjudication of the portions of the complaint constituting claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and fraud.

  • Hearing

    Aug 15, 2018

  • County

    Calaveras County, CA

SPECK VS ARIKA METALS INC

The first motion for preliminary approval of a proposed class-action settlement is denied. Any future motion for preliminary approval shall comply with CMO#2, which the Court will issue forthwith. The Court schedules a status conference concerning a potential second motion for preliminary approval on October 24, 2018. If a second motion has been filed at least four court days before than date, the status conference is likely to be vacated.

  • Hearing

    Aug 16, 2018

SIERRA CROSSING HOA V. DEROSA

The sanctions imposed were stayed pending defendants’ compliance with the injunction by April 27, 2018. The work was not completed by that date. The court held several hearings on the progress in complying with the injunction on May 4, 11, and 23, 2018, on June 4 and 14, 2018, and on August 2, 2018. On August 2, 2018 Mr. DeRosa stated that the wall was completed and was pending final inspection.

  • Hearing

    Aug 16, 2018

BROWN V. GARDEN GROVE MANOR, INC.

The only remaining concern is whether the purchase and sale agreement qualifies as sufficiently enforceable even though it is contingent upon such things as fund availability, inspection, preliminary title report, etc. This Court hinted at the issue in prior rulings, but finds itself now in a position to actually make a definitive ruling. In Behniwal v.

  • Hearing

    Aug 16, 2018

MIGUEL ROJAS HERNANDEZ ET AL VS POTRERO INC ET AL

Plaintiffs’ application for a preliminary injunction is CONTINUED to Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 1:30 p.m. in Dept. SE-C. The TRO shall remain in effect. Moving Party to give notice. “The court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.

  • Hearing

    Aug 16, 2018

GOLDEN DOOR PROPERTIES LLC VS COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO [EFILE]

"We emphasize that a preliminary mandatory injunction is rarely granted, and is subject to stricter review on appeal .... The granting of a mandatory injunction pending trial is not permitted except in extreme cases where the right thereto is clearly established ...." Teachers Ins. & Annuity Assn. v. Furlotti (1999) 70 Cal. App. 4th 1487, 1493 (internal citations and quotations omitted).

  • Hearing

    Aug 16, 2018

GGF PICO RIVERA, LLC VS. DAVID BEAUTY COLLEGE, INC.

.: VC067090 HEARING: 08/16/18 #8 TENTATIVE ORDER There will be no tentative ruling issued pertaining to the OSC re: Preliminary Injunction.

  • Hearing

    Aug 16, 2018

A&B MARKET PLUS INC VS. NEIGHBORHOOD MARKET ASSOCIATION INC

The court incorporates a portion of its prior ruling of June 6, 2018 as follows: As a preliminary matter, Plaintiffs are the prevailing party in this action. (Judgment ¶ 7.) The motion for attorneys' fees is denied as to Mark Arabo. Plaintiffs do not cite any authority to support the contention than an attorneys' fees award can be awarded against a direct individual defendant when plaintiffs prevail in a derivative action. In both Fletcher v. A. J.

  • Hearing

    Aug 16, 2018

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

INEZ HENDERSON ET AL VS PROVIDENCE HEALTH SYSTEM - SOUTHERN

As a preliminary matter the court finds that the parties have adequately met and conferred regarding the subject documents. Plaintiffs seek to compel further production as to Requests for Production, Set Two, Requests No. 86 through 92. (Motion at p. 2.) These requests ask for documents related to the types of alarms available to Providence staff to alert them to the dislodgement of tracheotomy or ventilator tubes, and documentation as to when such alarms were used on Henderson. (Fighera Decl. Exh. A.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 16, 2018

  • Judge

    Robert S. Draper or Gail Ruderman Feuer

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ERNESTO RIOS JR VS MORTGAGE 101 LLC ET AL

In sum, Defendant does not meet its burden to demonstrate that it has suffered or is likely to suffer any harm from the denial of a preliminary injunction or that it may legally obtain possession of the Subject Property through a preliminary injunction. (See Grey, supra, 97 Cal.App.3d at p. 237.) The court therefore DENIES the motion.

  • Hearing

    Aug 16, 2018

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

SALAMIRAD VS. JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC

Thus, as a preliminary matter defendant has waived all responses and on that basis alone the motion is GRANTED. As to the merits of plaintiff’s motion, plaintiff complied with the requirements set forth in CCP § 2031.310(b). Plaintiff sent a meet and confer correspondence prior to filing the instant motion and established good cause compelling further responses. Plaintiff contends that the requested documents relate to data extracted from the vehicle which is the subject of this litigation.

  • Hearing

    Aug 16, 2018

FOOTHILL VILLAGE MOBILE HOME PARK, LLC VS JOHN NICHOLAS AVINO, ET AL.

At that time, the court “shall” issue the injunction if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that existence of a continuing or recurring “reasonable” R&R violation. The duration of the injunction may not exceed three years. Note: Petition for injunction and notice of hearing must be personally served. (See Civil Code § 798.88(c).)

  • Hearing

    Aug 16, 2018

  • Judge

    Wendy Chang or Jon R. Takasugi

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

LISSNER V. NYGAARD

Respondent filed a response to the petition denying all allegations that respondent engaged in the wrongful conduct and referring the court to the current preliminary injunction in the civil case, which requires the parties to avoid all contact with each other and only communicate through counsel.

  • Hearing

    Aug 16, 2018

HILLSBOROUGH DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LLC VS. IRA RESOURCES INC

TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause Re: Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED. "[W]hether a preliminary injunction should be granted involves two interrelated factors: (1) the likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits, and (2) the relative balance of harms that is likely to result from the granting or denial of interim injunctive relief." (People ex rel. Feuer v. FXS Management, Inc. (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 1154, 1158 [Citation omitted].)

  • Hearing

    Aug 16, 2018

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

MARION V. ROSCOE

OSC re Preliminary Injunction—Continued Hearing TENTATIVE RULING Parties and any interested persons are to appear for hearing as scheduled.

  • Hearing

    Aug 16, 2018

XXXXXXX, XXXXXXXXX VS DOE, JOHN

Plaintiff xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction is continued to October 10, 2018. There is currently an OSC re Sanctions for Failure to Serve Summons and First Amended Complaint set for October 3, 2018. Accordingly, any motion hearing must be continued until after the OSC. Notably, at the hearing on Plaintiff’s Motions for Reconsideration on August 1, 2018, the court continued the motions to October 10, 2018. Clerk to give notice

  • Hearing

    Aug 16, 2018

  • Judge

    Wendy Chang or Jon R. Takasugi

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE VS STEELE

Further that the preliminary construction plans and anticipated construction do not indicate that the project will interfere with use of the parcel. Additionally, that the property is for a non-exclusive temporary construction easement. Counsel is to appear to discuss notice to occupants of the property, to wit: occupants of the modular homes.

  • Hearing

    Aug 16, 2018

NYGAARD V. LISSNER

On July 6, 2018 the court granted plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction, which enjoined defendants, their officers, agents, employees and representatives from blocking, restricting, or impeding the Nygaards’ access to their residence in any fashion across the driveway until such time as the Nygaards have completed the construction of a new driveway and bridge and that both parties shall avoid contact or conflict during this time, stay separated, and communicate only via attorneys.

  • Hearing

    Aug 16, 2018

  « first    1 ... 395 396 397 398 399 400

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.