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

Rulings on Motion to Dissolve Preliminary Injunction

9976-10000 of 10000 results

ROMO VS. THE PEASANT & THE PEA

HEARING ON MOTION TO/FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACT. STLMNT FILED BY GUADALUPE ROMO, JOSE LUIS HERRERA, FRANCESCA * TENTATIVE RULING: * The parties are to appear to establish a schedule for further proceedings. They may appear by telephone.

  • Hearing

    May 18, 2017

COURTOIS VS. BANK OF AMERICA NA

Plaintiff's motion to strike general objections and preliminary statements from Defendant's discovery responses is denied. Plaintiff has not cited any authority supporting such a request. Plaintiff's request for sanctions is denied in light of this ruling.

  • Hearing

    Dec 05, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

KATHERINE D. CHAMBERLIN VS. NAPSTER, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION ET AL

PLAINTIFF KATHERINE CHAMBERLIN'S Motion For Preliminary Approval Of Class Settlement. A HEARING IS REQUIRED. =(302/PJM)

  • Hearing

    Jan 16, 2007

RIDER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP VS. EQUITY ONE REALTY & MANAGEMENT CA, INC. ET AL

To the extent that Defendant demurs to the allegations of promissory estoppel, accord and satisfaction, specific performance, injunction, and restitution in the first cause of action, a demurrer cannot be used to attack only part of a cause of action. For the third cause of action, Plaintiff has pled sufficient facts to allege specific performance. Whether damages are an adequate remedy involves a question of fact that is not the proper subject of a demurrer.

  • Hearing

    May 06, 2014

COLLECTION SOLUTIONS VS AMERICAN COLLECTION

The only relief sought in the body of that count is an injunction, which is statutorily authorized (Bus. & Prof. Code §17203.) Assuming arguendo that it is improper to incorporate by reference damages allegations, a reuqest for an improper remedy is not a ground for a general demurrer. 4.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2009

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Defamation

BUERGI VS. CENTEX HOMES

Injunctive Relief Defendants’ motion to strike the request for injunctive relief, Page 34, Prayer for Relief on Fourth Cause of Action, Lines 3-7, “For permanent injunction” is granted. Business & Professions Code §17203 provides in part: “Any person who engages, has engaged, or proposes to engage in unfair competition may be enjoined in any court of competent jurisdiction.” Defendants argue Plaintiffs have not allege on- going conduct to justify injunctive relief. The court agrees. C.

  • Hearing

    Feb 16, 2017

COOPER VS. THE CAL DEPT CORR AND REHAB

Petitioner also requests that Judge Bacal recuse herself from the case if she is not willing to grant an injunction against the "corruptive" respondents. The Court is denying the motions for legal reasons and not, as suggested by petitioner, because Judge Bacal has a personal or pecuniary interest in the case. Thus, Judge Bacal declines to recuse herself. The minute order will be the order of the Court. The court clerk will serve notice on all parties.

  • Hearing

    Nov 30, 2017

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

FIRST AMERICAN MORTGAGE COMPANY V. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.

Plaintiff First American’s fifth cause of action for injunction relief seeking an order that defendant Bank of America issue deeds sufficient for recording is found to be a real property cause of action. Next, in the court’s discretion, defendant Bank of America, N.A.’s request for attorney’s fee, pursuant to C.C.P. § 396b(b), is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Dec 20, 2018

FARIA VS. CARRIAGE FUNERAL HOMES

Since this is only preliminary approval, however, and the representative payments will be approved only at the final approval stage, the Court simply advises counsel that further documentation of the propriety of these payments will be necessary. Other Issues: With the exception of the matters indicated above, the settlement appears to meet the criteria for approval.

  • Hearing

    May 09, 2019

LITTLE CAESAR ENTERPRISES WAGE AND HOUR CASES

Nature of Proceedings: Motion: Preliminary Approval This is a motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement as to the coordinated action Toledo v. Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc. The remaining coordinated action Macias v. Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc., has also settled, but is unaffected by the class action settlement at issue here. “‘[T]o prevent fraud, collusion or unfairness to the class, the settlement or dismissal of a class action requires court approval.’ [Citations.]

  • Hearing

    Feb 13, 2015

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

URIBE VS CROWN BUILDING MAINTENANCE CO.

1.PLAINTIFF JOSUE URIBE MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT 2.PROPOSED INTERVENOR ISABEL GARIBAY MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE Isabel Garibay’s Motion for Leave to File Complaint in Intervention is granted. This ruling moots Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary approval. Garibay seeks leave to amend pursuant to CCP § 387 which allows for mandatory or permissive intervention. Intervention is proper in this case under either theory.

  • Hearing

    Feb 02, 2018

DR. AMARJIT S. MARWAH VS. HERNANDEZ ET AL.,

The reason derives from the difference between an abstract of title prepared by an abstractor and a preliminary title report prepared by a title insurer prior to issuing a title insurance policy.

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2016

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

LEVI BENSON VS TRADER JOE'S COMPANY

TRADER JOE’S COMPANY MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TENTATIVE RULING Motion Granted. Plaintiff to prepare a proposed order containing a calendar of events leading to Final Approval (Fairness) Hearing. Call Court for hearing date.

  • Hearing

    Sep 13, 2016

CENTINO VS. ARROWHEAD PRODUCTS CORPORATION

Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval is GRANTED. Moving parties to give notice, including to the LWDA.

  • Hearing

    Jan 16, 2020

SHANNON HOLBROOK ET AL VS. WINERY COLLECTIVE LLC ET AL

Ntc Of Mtn For Prelim Approval Set for hearing on Friday, September 2, 2016, Line 3, PLAINTIFFS SHANNON HOLBROOK, BENJAMIN SPEARS AND STEPHANIE JACKSON'S Motion For Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement. Hearing required. =(302/HK)

  • Hearing

    Sep 02, 2016

DE ARCOS V. AMWARE PALLET SERVICES, LLC

The parties are DIRECTED TO APPEAR for a hearing on plaintiff Cristopher De Arcos’s unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.769(c), (d).)

  • Hearing

    May 14, 2018

BARAJAS VS. ORANGEWOOD, LLC

1) Plaintiff Maria Barajas and Defendant Orangewood, LLC's Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement 2) Status Conference Motion and Status Conference continued to 09/23/2016 per stipulation and order signed and filed on 7/28/2016.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2016

JORGE LLAMAS JR VS JULIA M SANABIA

(Costco, supra, at p. 732, 101 Cal.Rptr.3d 758, 219 P.3d 736.)The party claiming the privilege, here, appellants, has "the burden of establishing the preliminary facts necessary to support its exercise, i.e., a communication made in the course of an attorney-client relationship. [Citations.]

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

SCOTT RICHARSON VS TEC EQUIPMENT INC.,

The Court also notes that the parties’ negotiations were overseen by an experienced neutral and that the action also implicates a government participant which has not appeared to object to the proposed settlement, despite having notice of the preliminary fairness hearing. These facts further support the Court’s determination that the settlement is adequate, fair and reasonable. Id.; see also Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 116, 133.

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2017

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JW MITCHELL INC VS QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION

Paragraphs 17, 18, 20, 37-42 (paragraph 37 incorporates the preliminary allegations), 50 and 57-61 within the FAC allege sufficient facts supporting each element of this cause of action.

  • Hearing

    Apr 27, 2017

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

KAREN HUGHES VS. RALEYS

In the event that preliminary approval was granted, the parties will report on the status of performance of the ordered terms and when a final approval motion is anticipated or if such motion is pending. If and after final approval is obtained from the Law and Motion Department, this Court will monitor compliance with the terms until the matter is deemed closed.

  • Hearing

    Aug 25, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

IN RE THE ESTATE OF MARGEL ADA BEEBE, DECEASED

Petition, item 25: The amount of the preliminary distribution exceeded 50% of the net value of the estate and was done without court approval (Probate Code § 11623(a)(2)). Additionally, the preliminary distribution occurred prior to the deadline for filing creditor claims. The petitioner shall clarify.

  • Hearing

    Nov 02, 2020

KIM VS LEAFFILTER NORTH LLC

Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement The hearing on this motion is continued to February 5, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. in Department CX101 so that plaintiff may address the issues identified below. It is not necessary for plaintiff to resubmit briefing which has already been filed with the Court. Supplemental declarations or other supplemental materials shall be filed at least 10 days before the continued hearing.

  • Hearing

    Nov 01, 2020

WELLS FARGO BANK MANAGERS WAGE AND HOUR CASES

Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement The Court issues the following tentative ruling for the hearing on January 12, 2017, at 2:30 p.m. regarding the unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement by plaintiffs Carlos Lopez and Joseph Fontana, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated individuals (collectively, "Plaintiffs"). This motion seeks preliminary approval of a class action settlement. The proposed settlement will dispose of Carlos Lopez v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 10, 2017

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

WELLS FARGO BANK MANAGERS WAGE AND HOUR CASES

Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement The Court issues the following tentative ruling for the hearing on January 12, 2017, at 2:30 p.m. regarding the unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement by plaintiffs Carlos Lopez and Joseph Fontana, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated individuals (collectively, "Plaintiffs"). This motion seeks preliminary approval of a class action settlement. The proposed settlement will dispose of Carlos Lopez v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 10, 2017

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

  « 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.