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

151-175 of 10000 results

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

BUCHSBAUM VS DIGITAL INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS LLC [E-FILE]

As a preliminary matter, neither party submitted a copy of the operative complaint in the pending federal class action matter. However, "the court may take judicial notice on its own volition." Scott v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 743, 752. Accordingly, the court, on its own motion, takes judicial notice of the complaint and notice of removal filed in Case No. 2020-12175. Evid. Code § 452(d).

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

THE TWO HUNDRED VS. GOVERNORS OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH

Balance of Harms A preliminary injunction “must not issue unless it is reasonably probable that the moving party will prevail on the merits.” (San Francisco Newspaper Printing Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 438, 442.) “A trial court may not grant a preliminary injunction, 13 668, 678, emphasis added.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2020

THE TWO HUNDRED VS. GOVERNORS OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH

Balance of Harms A preliminary injunction "must not issue unless it is reasonably probable that the moving party will prevail on the merits." (San Francisco Newspaper Printing Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 438, 442.) "A trial court may not grant a preliminary injunction. 668, 678, emphasis added.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2020

KNOX, ET AL. V. AN IMPORTS OF STEVENS CREEK, INC., ET AL.

DISCUSSION 6 The case has been settled on behalf of all technicians employed by defendants AN 7 Imports of Stevens Creek and Allison Bavarian in the state of California from September 27, 8 2013 until the preliminary approval date, who were paid in whole or in part on a piece-rate basis. 9 As discussed in connection with preliminary approval, defendants An Imports of Stevens 10 Creek, Inc., dba MINI of Stevens Creek, Allison Bavarian dba BMW of Mountain View, and 11 AutoNation, Inc. will pay a total of $3,501,000

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2020

MATAMOROS VS ARELLANO, ET AL.

Plaintiff contends that defendant violated the preliminary injunction by paving over portions of his property which are near and/or directly above the disputed underground waterline easement. The court’s order allowed defendant to “perform subdivision work above the water line so long as it does not damage, molest, move, change or disturb the water line.” Plaintiff insists the paving work “undoubtedly” disturbed and possibly even “molested” the underground water line.

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2020

PAXON VS. E2 CONSULTING

The Court’s preliminary assessment is that plaintiff’s assertion is not supported by the record. On July 10, 2020, long after the Covid 19 crisis began, plaintiff filed a Case Management Conference statement that made no reference to arbitration. In this CMC statement, plaintiff sought a five-day jury trial to begin more than a year later, in August 2021. Other evidence in the record suggests that plaintiff may have had a different motive for bringing this motion to compel.

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2020

MARTIN VS SAINI

., defendant mailed/served documents on plaintiffs on xx date in violation of the preliminary injunction. Once the defendant is personally served, the court holds an in person arraignment with a court reporter where defendant is advised of her rights and offered the opportunity to be referred to the public defender. After a follow-up hearing where counsel is accepted, the defendant enters a plea and the court sets the contempt hearing.

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2020

MARTHA SILLMAN VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

PRELIMINARY COMMENT: It appears that Plaintiff’s counsel may have copied and pasted a portion of another client’s pleadings within this instant application. For example, the memorandum of points and authorities discusses a motion in limine no. 2 and “highly sensitive personal information relating to Plaintiff’s minor child, who is not a party to this action.” (Application, p. 2:13-15.) Plaintiff also cites to the declaration of counsel Carney R.

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

WILLIAM SZYMACZAK V. NATURAL HEALING CENTER, LLC

Motion for Issuance of a Preliminary Injunction RULING ON EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS In conjunction with Plaintiffs’ motion for an order appointing a receiver and for issuance of a preliminary injunction, the Court is in receipt of 163 pages of evidentiary objections (196 evidentiary objections total).

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2020

WILLIAM SZYMACZAK V. NATURAL HEALING CENTER, LLC

Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction in aid of the Receiver to operate and manage the Companies is denied. Plaintiffs’ alternative request for injunctive relief is denied.

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2020

CHUNHUA WU, ET AL. VS BILLY XU, ET AL.

As a preliminary matter, there is no declaration as to meet and confer efforts in this matter. However, in light of the nature of this motion, the merits are discussed below. The facts underlying this motion are set forth in the declaration of Kenneth K. Hsu, Plaintiffs’ counsel, and the attached exhibits. Mr.

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MARTHA SILLMAN VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

PRELIMINARY COMMENT: It appears that Plaintiff’s counsel may have copied and pasted a portion of another client’s pleadings within this instant application. For example, the memorandum of points and authorities discusses a Motion in Limine No. 2 and “highly sensitive personal information relating to Plaintiff’s minor child, who is not a party to this action.” (Application, p. 2:13-15.) Plaintiff also cites to the declaration of counsel Carney R.

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

BALBOA CAPITAL CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS SAMVEL GUKASYAN

This preliminary showing reveals that it is likely that the sale of the dwelling would produce a bid sufficient to satisfy the monetary judgment. (It also appears that the sale of the dwelling would produce sufficient funds to satisfy the junior liens of American Express and Wells Fargo in the amounts of $56,940.90 and $8,875.63, respectively.) For the purposes of setting this OSC, the Court finds Mr. Iezza’s declaration to be sufficient to comply with CCP § 704.760.

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

HOLLYWOOD AND IVAR, LLC VS DWG INTERNATIONAL, LLC

PRELIMINARY COMMENTS: The Court is concerned that Plaintiff is playing games. According to defense counsel’s declaration, on June 12, 2020, counsel met-and-conferred concerning the demurrer; on June 17, 2020 Plaintiff’s counsel stated that he would be filing a First Amended Complaint “asap.” (Levine Declaration, Exh. 2.) No such First Amended Complaint was filed. Defendant filed its demurrer on Sept. 15, 2020. Plaintiff did not oppose the demurrer.

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2020

MARK BENAVIDES, ET AL. VS CARMAX AUTO SUPERSTORES CALIFORNIA, LLC

Paragraph 77 of the complaint, which is part of the CLRA cause of action, alleges Gutierrez is entitled to various forms of relief, including an injunction and “restitution of property. . . . [A]n allegation that the plaintiff would not have purchased the goods if he or she had known the undisclosed information, is sufficient to allege the purchaser suffered ‘any damage.’ Therefore, we conclude Gutierrez adequately alleged the any-damage element of a CLRA claim.” (Gutierrez, 19 Cal.

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

LADONNA MCNEIL VS SUNNY HILLS AUTO, INC., ET AL.

Moreover, the parties opposing the injunction had “not come forward with any explanation whatever of why the pending interpleader action [was] inadequate to preserve their rights to the funds in question or how they would be damaged if the preliminary injunction issued.” (Ibid.) Under these circumstances, the trial court had abused its discretion by denying the request for a preliminary injunction. (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2020

LELA LTANYA BROWN-LUKE VS ANDREA BROWN, ET AL.

BROWN Case Number: 20STCV30775 Hearing Date: October 21, 2020 [Tentative] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

RE: PET’N FOR PRELIMINARY DISTRIBUTION

Note: Order for Preliminary Distribution filed 9-2-2020. ANTHONY BOLTON JERRAYL BOLTON BRIAR HORN JESSYKAH PIERCE-JOHNSON BRIAR HORN JOSEPHINE BOLTON Need appearances to report status ERIN BRINDLEY STEPHEN M. FLYNN JOANN HOWELL LINDA LEGATE ALAN D WEST MICHELE TIERNAN G KEVIN LACHONA ROBERT O MORRIS ROBERT O MORRIS

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: FINAL REPORT ON WVR OF ACCT, PET’N FOR FINAL DIST, COMPENSATION

Note: Order for Preliminary Distribution filed 9-2-2020. ANTHONY BOLTON JERRAYL BOLTON BRIAR HORN JESSYKAH PIERCE-JOHNSON BRIAR HORN JOSEPHINE BOLTON Need appearances to report status ERIN BRINDLEY STEPHEN M. FLYNN JOANN HOWELL LINDA LEGATE ALAN D WEST MICHELE TIERNAN G KEVIN LACHONA ROBERT O MORRIS ROBERT O MORRIS

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: FIRST AND FINAL RPT, PET’N FOR COMPENSATION, FINAL DIST

If $5,000.00 reserve is needed, Ct will consider approving a preliminary distribution and approve 75% of fees requested. JANET BOWEN JODI KATHERINE GIEG CHARLES DES ROCHES

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

  • Judge

    Fenstermacher

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

AMTAX HOLDINGS 2001 J LLC VS PRESERVATION PROPERTIES LLC ET

On August 10, 2016, Amtax notified PPLLC that it was exercising its right to dissolve the Partnership, as well as its right under the Election Clause to force a sale of the Complex or a buyout of its interest. (SAXC ¶ 28.) PPLLC elected to buy Amtax’s interest rather than sell the Sacramento Complex. (SAXC ¶ 29.) However, Amtax continues to refuse to approve the refinancing. (SAXC ¶¶ 32-35.) As a result, some of the debt instruments went into default. (SAXC ¶¶ 40-44.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

CARLOS SPENCER, ET AL. VS SEAN SABERI, ET AL.

Balance of Hardships In determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction, the second factor which a trial court examines is the interim harm that plaintiff is likely to sustain if the injunction is denied as compared to the harm that the defendant is likely to suffer if the court grants a preliminary injunction. Donahue Schriber Realty Group, Inc. v. Nu Creation Outreach, (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 1171, 1177.

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

AURIC ENERGY VS. RANGEL

To guide the parties in their meet and confer efforts, the Court offers its preliminary observations on the issues raised in the demurrer. Standing: "A demurrer lies for lack of standing when the defect appears on the face of the pleading or from judicially noticeable matters." (Qualified Patients Ass'n v. City of Anaheim (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 734, 752.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

710 AND 712 ARDMORE, LLC VS MARK ROTH & DOES 1-10, INCLUSIVE

BACKGROUND On January 19, 2018, 710 and 712 Ardmore, LLC filed a complaint against Mark Roth for (1) intentional interference with prospective economic relations, (2) preliminary and permanent injunction and damages, and (3) declaratory relief. On April 2, 2018, plaintiff filed a FAC, alleging that it is the owner and developer of real property located at 710-712 Ardmore Avenue, Hermosa Beach. The project is a completed, two-unit townhouse development.

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

  « 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.