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

101-125 of 10000 results

IN RE ALPHABET, INC. SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION

Conclusion and Order Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval is GRANTED. The final approval hearing shall take place on November 30, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in Dept. 1. The parties shall appear for a case management conference on October 22, 2020 at 2:30 p.m. in Dept. 1. The Court will prepare the order.

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

FRANKLIN CREDIT MGMT VS WATTS

Second, petitioner offers no evidence that the unsigned, undated, anonymous notes are anything more than what they appear to be: someone’s listing of who the claimants to the excess proceeds were, and a preliminary assessment of which claims should be allowed. Petitioner makes no reasoned argument as to why such notes should be given the effect of binding admissions in this writ proceeding.

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

TOVAR VS NIR WEST COAST

The gross settlement amount, however, will be paid over time: $40,000 paid by October 1, 2020, followed by 36 payments of $10,000, paid on the 15th of the month each month after preliminary approval is entered.

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

BICKEL VS. ATTORNEY LENDER SERVICES

Also, if plaintiff’s daughter will be seeking injunctive relief, as she did in plaintiff’s motion for a renewed preliminary injunction, plaintiff’s daughter must be added as a party and must independently allege facts sufficient to support a viable cause of action against defendants.

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

BICKEL VS. ATTORNEY LENDER SERVICES

The Court is not inclined to “renew” the original preliminary injunction when plaintiff failed to post the undertaking required as a condition of that injunction. This ruling is without prejudice to plaintiff filing a new motion for a preliminary injunction after plaintiff has filed an amended pleading.

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

SALON REBELLE, LLC VS. LOVE

The Court GRANTS Davis and Love’s Requests for Judicial Notice as to Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application for a Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause Why a Preliminary Injunction Should Not Issue filed on July 6, 2020, pursuant to Evidence Code section 452(d). However, the Court declines to take judicial notice of hearsay statements contained in the court’s records. (Sosinsky v. Grant (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1548, 1564.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

HARRISON VS. THE IRVINE COMPANY LLC

B to the order granting preliminary approval. The proposed final order should identify October 22, 2020 as the date of final approval. Regarding settlement administrator costs, the proposed final order should specify that of the amount approved ($144,526), $34,763 is payable from the Common Settlement Fund, and $109,763 is payable by Defendants. If counsel differ regarding this calculation, counsel are to provide their calculation. By the Court's calculation, the Net Settlement Fund is $612,754.43.

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

COFFEE + FOOD, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL. VS JEANNE LEONIAN, ET AL.

Specifically Plaintiffs request reduction for “Defendants’ preliminary analysis of the Complaint and First Amended Complaint; preparing Defendants’ responses to discovery requests; preparing Defendants’ mediation brief and preparation, travel to and appearance at mediation; preparation, travel to and appearance on behalf of Defendants at hearings not related to the anti-SLAPP motion; drafting, researching and review of Defendants’ objection to pleadings not related to the anti-SLAPP motion; conference calls

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

ANGELA FLORES, ET AL. VS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

The operative pleading is the Second Amended Petition (“SAP”), filed on January 23, 2020, which alleges causes of action for traditional mandamus and declaratory relief and seeks the remedy of injunction. The verified SAP alleges in pertinent part as follows. a.

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

SHELLY HART VS COURTNEY SULLIVAN, ET AL.

“The party claiming the privilege 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

    Oct 22, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ROMERO VS. RUSHMYFILE, INC.

Coast Waste Mgmt., Inc. (1996) 47 CA4th 320, 327, 54 CR2d 588, 593—recognizing court's inherent power to modify or dissolve preliminary injunctions; Loeffler v. Medina (2009) 174 CA4th 1495, 1504, 95 CR3d 343, 350; and ¶ 9:619 ff.] Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial Ch. 9(II)-A 9:664. We further note the court possesses the inherent power to modify its preliminary injunction which is of a continuing or executory nature. City of San Marcos v. Coast Waste Management, Inc. (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 320, 328.

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

CASSIDY VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO

Rather, she seeks the declaration of this court that the use of "less-lethal" ammunition is unconstitutional and thus purchasing same with public funds is illegal; and she seeks a permanent injunction prohibiting such expenditures in the future. The City and the Chief of Police now demur to the complaint. ROA 14. Plaintiff filed opposition. ROA 15. Defendants filed reply. ROA 16. The court has reviewed the papers. No further submissions are authorized in connection with this demurrer.

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

YYK HOLDCO LLC VS PMR-SJ CORPORATION

PMR counters that the "central issue" in this case – i.e., whether the proper estimated payments were included in the Preliminary Adjustment Statement – is nonarbitrable. To address the present problem of substantive arbitrability, the court asked itself the following questions: a. Did YYK send PMR a Preliminary Adjustment Statement in accordance with section 2.5.2 of the MIPA? Answer: Yes.

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

PANTAZATOS VS WALPERT

(Defendant Nicholas Rexford Walpert's Memorandum Of Points And Authorities in Opposition to Plaintiffs Application for Preliminary Injunction Page 1; lines 24-26." .... 5. Punitive Damages Allegations in the Prayer to the Quiet Title Cause of Action. Page 12 of the FAC line 20 as follows: "(2) For punitive and exemplary damages."

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

DA VS FISCHER

Attorney Work Product Where an interrogatory seeks disclosure of a list of witnesses from an attorney who took statements at his own initiative, "an objecting party may be entitled to protection if it can make a preliminary or foundational showing that answering the interrogatory would reveal the attorney's tactics, impressions, or evaluation of the case, or would result in opposing counsel taking undue advantage of the attorney's industry or efforts." Coito v. Superior Court (2012) 54 Cal.4th 480, 502.

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

GUOFENG CHEN VS MICHAEL KAM GAN, ET AL.

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that Plaintiff informed Defendant that Plaintiff could be wasting up to $2,000 to set the deposition, by obtaining a court reporter, interpreter, and video conferencing technology, without the assurance that Defendant may not attend. (Lu Decl., ¶ 15.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ROBERT SCOTT SHTOFMAN VS JULIE C LIM 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, [italics added].) 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

    Oct 22, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

PETITION OF MEDIMPACT HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS INC

In July 2020, MedImpact sought a preliminary injunction stopping the Department and Magellan from implementing the Medi-Cal Rx contract. ROA 24-29. The Department and Magellan filed opposition. ROA 31-40, 45. Petitioner filed reply. ROA 46-47. The court reviewed portions of the administrative record and the extensive briefing, and published a tentative ruling. ROA 55. Following a hearing on July 31, 2020, the court denied the requested preliminary injunction in a detailed ruling. ROA 58.

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

VOICE OF SAN DIEGO VS COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

The Petition (ROA # 11, 12, 24) of Petitioners VOICE OF SAN DIEGO, KPBS PUBLIC BROADCASTING AND SAN DIEGO UNION TRIBUNE ("Petitioners") for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction and Declaratory Relief for Violations of the Public Records Act in the SECOND AMENDED VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE, AND COMPLAINT FOR PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND DECLARATORY RELIEF FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS ACT ("SAP") against Respondent COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ("Respondent" or "COUNTY"), is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

DA VS FISCHER

Preliminary Matters Plaintiff's request for judicial notice of an earlier minute order issued in this case is not necessary, as it is part of the Court's record. The rest of plaintiff's unopposed request for judicial notice is granted. Discussion The County demurs to plaintiff's Monell cause of action on grounds that plaintiff fails to plead facts necessary to state the cause of action.

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

HERNANDEZ VS. SKJEI

Merits of Motion – Punitive Damages Allegations As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that the facts alleged only describe defendant Malena as driving under the influence – not defendant Kevin. Defendant Kevin is only alleged to be an owner of the vehicle in question. As such, there are insufficient facts alleged to support a claim of punitive damages against defendant Kevin Skjei.

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

PANTAZATOS VS WALPERT

(Defendant Nicholas Rexford Walpert's Memorandum Of Points And Authorities in Opposition to Plaintiffs Application for Preliminary Injunction Page 1; lines 24-26." .... 5. Punitive Damages Allegations in the Prayer to the Quiet Title Cause of Action. Page 12 of the FAC line 20 as follows: "(2) For punitive and exemplary damages."

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

PANTAZATOS VS WALPERT

(Defendant Nicholas Rexford Walpert's Memorandum Of Points And Authorities in Opposition to Plaintiffs Application for Preliminary Injunction Page 1; lines 24-26." .... 5. Punitive Damages Allegations in the Prayer to the Quiet Title Cause of Action. Page 12 of the FAC line 20 as follows: "(2) For punitive and exemplary damages."

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

CARDENAS VS CERTIFIED TIRE & SERVICE CENTERS INC

Preliminary Matters The Court notes that while plaintiffs Kevin Sanchez and Carlos Cardenas filed an opposition to a motion to strike (ROA # 23), and defendants filed a reply (ROA # 35), there is no motion to strike on file. Moreover, as defendants failed to reserve a hearing date for a motion to strike, pursuant to San Diego Superior Court's local rules, the motion will not be heard. L.R. 2.1.19.A. Defendants' unopposed request for judicial notice of exhibits B and C is granted.

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

ABDULLAH VS DILLON CORPORATION

Addressing a preliminary matter, the court finds Meyer's meet and confer efforts sufficient to allow for a ruling on the merits as to this discovery dispute. It appears the parties' failure to conclude their meet and confer efforts was as a result of a mutual failure to communicate. The court finds such circumstances do not preclude a ruling on the merits of this motion.

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  « 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.