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

101-125 of 10000 results

TOLMASOFF V. SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, LLC

Motion: Order to Show Cause Why Preliminary Injunction Should Not Issue. Tentative Ruling: To discharge the order to show cause and dissolve the temporary restraining order. Explanation: On February 15, 2017, Plaintiff filed an ex-parte application for a temporary restraining order and an order to show cause for a preliminary injunction to prevent the foreclosure sale of property located in Fresno, California. The ex parte was denied.

  • Hearing

    Mar 20, 2017

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

SOUTHFORK RANCH LLC VS. DAVID BUNN

Deny the Motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction. Whether Bunn/Birrell may share in the use of water from the proposed well sites is one of the main questions for the finder of fact, which will in large part depend on interpretation of the CC&Rs. There has not been a sufficient change in any material facts, since the preliminary injunction was granted, to justify dissolving the injunction.

  • Hearing

    Apr 22, 2015

SOUTHFORK RANCH LLC VS. DAVID BUNN

Deny the Motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction. Whether Bunn/Birrell may share in the use of water from the proposed well sites is one of the main questions for the finder of fact, which will in large part depend on interpretation of the CC&Rs. There has not been a sufficient change in any material facts, since the preliminary injunction was granted, to justify dissolving the injunction.

  • Hearing

    Apr 22, 2015

RANCHO YNECITA OWNERS ASSOCIATION V. JAMES H. NICHOLAS, ET AL

The Motion to Dissolve the Preliminary Injunction Motions to dissolve or modify an injunction are governed by Code of Civil Procedure section 533: 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

  • Hearing

    Mar 27, 2018

CHAMPIR, LLC VS FAIRBANKS RANCH ASSOCIATION

The preliminary injunction issued on October 15, 2018 is hereby dissolved.

  • Hearing

    Dec 13, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

SOUTHFORK RANCH LLC VS. DAVID BUNN

Deny the Motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction. Whether Bunn/Birrell may share in the use of water from the proposed well sites is one of the main questions for the finder of fact, which will in large part depend on interpretation of the CC&Rs. There has not been a sufficient change in any material facts, since the preliminary injunction was granted, to justify dissolving the injunction.

  • Hearing

    Apr 22, 2015

SOUTHFORK RANCH LLC VS. DAVID BUNN

Deny the Motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction. Whether Bunn/Birrell may share in the use of water from the proposed well sites is one of the main questions for the finder of fact, which will in large part depend on interpretation of the CC&Rs. There has not been a sufficient change in any material facts, since the preliminary injunction was granted, to justify dissolving the injunction.

  • Hearing

    Apr 22, 2015

SOUTHFORK RANCH LLC VS. DAVID BUNN

Deny the Motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction. Whether Bunn/Birrell may share in the use of water from the proposed well sites is one of the main questions for the finder of fact, which will in large part depend on interpretation of the CC&Rs. There has not been a sufficient change in any material facts, since the preliminary injunction was granted, to justify dissolving the injunction.

  • Hearing

    Apr 22, 2015

SOUTHFORK RANCH LLC VS. DAVID BUNN

Deny the Motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction. Whether Bunn/Birrell may share in the use of water from the proposed well sites is one of the main questions for the finder of fact, which will in large part depend on interpretation of the CC&Rs. There has not been a sufficient change in any material facts, since the preliminary injunction was granted, to justify dissolving the injunction.

  • Hearing

    Apr 22, 2015

ALSTON V. MASSICOTTE

The terms of the preliminary injunction are to be identical to the terms contained in the temporary restraining order issued on 9-11-20 under ROA No. 13 with the following modification: The preliminary injunction will dissolve on 12-4-20 unless there is evidence that Defendant has actually engaged in the conduct that is the subject of the preliminary injunction since the issuance of the temporary restraining order. (In re Butler (2018) 4 Cal.5th 728, 738 and 741.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

CHUCK AMITAL, SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE OF THE FRED S. VS. NORMANDY APARTMENTS, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL ET AL

The opposition to the motion for preliminary injunction did not raise the bond issue. At the hearing, defendant only sought a bond with regard to the disbursements and the court ordered no injunctive relief as to the disbursements (Reporters Transcript pgs. 11 and 17). The injunction was properly ordered as the only means to compel the appraisal process. Defendant's motion is an improper motion for reconsideration and/or motion to dissolve that does not meet the requirements of CCP 1008 and CCP 533.

  • Hearing

    Oct 27, 2014

PAUL FELLER VS BANK OF AMERICA ET AL

Nature of Proceedings: Motion Dissolve Preliminary Injunction Tentative

  • Hearing

    Aug 26, 2013

THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE VS SUNSET RECYCLING CENTER

The Court denies the OSC re: preliminary injunction as it would appear the issues are now moot. Unless the City demonstrates otherwise, the Court shall dissolve the TRO as moot. FACTUAL / PROCEDURAL CONTEXT Plaintiff City of Riverside (the “City”) filed the complaint and ex parte application for a TRO/OSC for a preliminary injunction (the “Application”) in this action on April 10, 2020, against Sunset Recycling Center (“Sunset Recycling”) and Artashes Balyan (“Balyan).

  • Hearing

    Jun 17, 2020

D & HC INVESTMENT, INC. VS PETER HENRY MACHIN, ET AL.

If no bond as ordered by the Court is posted on or before 4:00 p.m. on 9/27/19, the injunction will dissolve automatically.

  • Hearing

    Sep 13, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

IN RE: MARTIN F TRIANO

Respondent'S Mtn To Dissolve Preliminary Injunction DENY.(302/REQ/PB)

  • Hearing

    Apr 12, 2004

QUEZON VS TIKAL/KATN LIVING TR

Also on that same day, the Court heard the Ex Parte Application, granted the TRO, and entered an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) to show why a preliminary injunction should not be granted, enjoining the sale of the Subject Property. Service of Complaint and TRO CCP section 527, subdivision (a), provides: “No preliminary injunction shall be granted without notice to the opposing party.”

  • Hearing

    Dec 06, 2017

LAW OFFICES OF BENJAMIN PAVONE PC VS WILLIS

Defendant's Motion to Dissolve Preliminary Injunction is DENIED without prejudice. The injunction against Myzsa prevents her from dissipating any of the sales proceeds from the Oliver Avenue property up to the amount of $507,361, or encumbering or disposing of the Mt. Aladin Property (3792 Mt. Aladin Ave., San Diego, California) up to the amount of $507,361, which is the amount of the fees asserted in the complaint.

  • Hearing

    Dec 12, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

30-2017-00954111-CU-FR-CJC

Plaintiff’s OSC re: Preliminary Injunction The Court is inclined to take the OSC off calendar and dissolve the TRO.

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2017

SLV GOLF, LLC VS ZARUKA INVESTMENT PROPERTIES LLC

Accordingly, ZIP’s and Verizon’s request to dissolve or modify the injunction is denied.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2018

ALTA VISTA SOLUTIONS VS. STATE

HEARING ON MOTION TO DISSOLVE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION FILED BY STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION * TENTATIVE RULING: * Vacated.

  • Hearing

    Apr 17, 2019

TANOUS VS. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC

(1) Motion to Dissolve Plaintiff’s Preliminary Injunction (2) CMC Ruling: Off Calendar – no hearing will be held. Continued to 11-21-17.

  • Hearing

    Nov 14, 2017

TEXTAINER LIMITED VS. BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION ET AL

Motion To Dissolve Or Modify Preliminary Injunction; Index Of Exhibits, Appendix Of Noncal Authorities HEARING REQUIRED.(302/REQ/HE)

  • Hearing

    Mar 10, 2005

ATTARD VS. SELECT PORTFOLIO

HEARING ON OSC RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION PER ORDER FILED 07-22-19 * TENTATIVE RULING: * Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction against foreclosure is granted in part. The Court hereby issues a three-month preliminary injunction that will expire automatically at the end of the day on November 21, 2019, unless extended by further order. This relief is conditioned on plaintiff paying defendant Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.

  • Hearing

    Aug 21, 2019

DAGGETT VS JAUREGUI

Based on the Court granting the motion to stay dissolution, Defendant's motion to dissolve is denied. Finally, with respect to the OSC re preliminary injunction, the Court will leave in place the TRO to maintain the status quo. However, to do so, Plaintiffs are required to file a bond of $25,000 within 10 days of this ruling.

  • Hearing

    May 11, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

HUPP VS SOLERA OAK VALLEY GREENS ASSOCIATION

The unopposed Motion to Dissolve Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED. Moving party Solera Oak Valley Greens Association shall submit a proposed Order to the Court within 10 days.

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2019

  « 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.