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

176-200 of 10000 results

CITY OF INDUSTRY VS BETTY T. YEE, ET AL.

The purported cause of action for injunctive relief (which is actually a remedy) seeks an injunction enjoining the Controller from improperly withholding public records in response to the City’s requests and from altering or destroying any responsive documents. 2. Course of Proceedings On March 7, 2019, the court denied the Controller’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court ordered the parties to meet and confer to try and resolve all issues and find out the scope of remaining issues.

  • 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

QUINN V. COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO

Motion for Preliminary Injunction Because the Court has granted the County’s motion for judgment on the pleadings without leave to amend, judgment shall be entered in favor of the County and the motion for preliminary injunction is moot. 6

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

PINE MANOR INVESTORS LLC VS. FPI MANAGEMENT INC

The parties shall report on the status of the motion for preliminary approval of settlement, and if such motion has been granted, the estimated date when a motion for final approval is expected. Pursuant to Local Rule 1.06(B), parties requesting to be heard must call the court and opposing parties by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing.

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

TRACY FONTENETTE ALLEN VS SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING INC, ET AL.

TRO & Preliminary Injunction (1st COA) Injunctive relief in the form of a TRO or preliminary injunction is a remedy, not a cause of action. (See City of South Pasadena v. Department of Transportation (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1280, 1293.) As such, Defendants’ demurrer as to the 1st cause of action is sustained with leave to amend injunctive relief as a remedy.

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

ANGELA WATSON VS GILBERT A. CABOT

DISCUSSION As a preliminary matter, Defendants’ request for judicial notice of the December 5, 2019, Minute Order and the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) is GRANTED. DEMURRER 1st Cause of Action: Negligent Misrepresentation Statute of Limitations Defendants contend that the 1st cause of action is time-barred because Plaintiff failed to bring the claim within three years of the statute beginning to run.

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

FLAGSHIP CREDIT ACCEPTANCE, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS THERESA SCOTT

The successful plaintiff may obtain a preliminary injunction containing the same provisions as a TRO that remains in effect until the property is seized by the levying officer.[2] CCP §513.010(c). The court may also issue a “turnover order” directing the defendant to transfer possession of the property to the plaintiff (See Mandatory Form CD-120). The order must notify the defendant that failure to comply may subject him or her to contempt of court. CCP §512.070.

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

COPELAND V. CITY OF PASO ROBLES

Plaintiff has the burden of showing preliminary facts supporting the applicability of the work product privilege. (Carehouse Convalescent Hospital v. Superior Court (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1558, 1563; Gonzalez v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1549.) The City argues that Plaintiff’s conclusory declaration is insufficient, and contradicts the testimony she gave at her deposition.1 In reply, Plaintiff argues that her declaration sufficiently meets her burden.

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

WRITERS GUILD OF AMERICA WEST INC VS CITIZEN JANE PRODUCTION

PRELIMINARY COMMENTS: A valid judgment was entered against the Judgment Debtor in 2013. During post-judgment proceedings, the Judgement Creditor’s attorney committed various allegedly fraudulent acts and signed allegedly perjurious declarations. The Judgment Creditor’s attorney has been sanctioned for many of these acts by at least two judges who were presiding over this case.

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

CHRISTIAN FUHRER, ET AL. VS BEVERLY HILLS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.

A party that seeks to protect communications from disclosure based upon the attorney-client privilege must establish the preliminary facts necessary to support its exercise—i.e., a communication made in the course of an attorney-client relationship. [Citation omitted.]

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

WOODS V. FRESNO VALVES & CASTINGS

Improper Inclusion of FLSA Claims The Court’s rulings on March 13, 2019 and August 12, 2019 stated the statutory requirements for inclusion of claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) in the settlement, and denied preliminary approval because such were not met. Those rulings are incorporated herein for reference. The problem language from the prior settlements was removed, and preliminary approval was given to the current proposed settlement.

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

HECTOR WRIGHT VS. DALLO & CO INC [E-FILE]

In approving the settlement, this Court found that notice to the settlement class, including the mailing of the class notice, as set forth in the settlement agreement, was completed in conformity with the preliminary approval order. A finding was made that this notice was the best practicable under the circumstances, and satisfied due process requirements. Class member Lee was included in the settlement, was sent notice of the settlement, and never opted out of it.

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

SALVADOR ESTRADA VS CENTRAL TRANSPORT, LLC, AN INDIANA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

Motion for Preliminary Approval Plaintiff brings the action as a class and representative action on behalf of all current and former hourly paid, nonexempt truck drivers who worked for Defendant in California, beginning on August 1, 2019. Due to the settlement of the class action in Becerra v Central Transport Case No.

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

ALPENGLOW VS COACHILLIN HEARING RE: MOTION TO/FOR COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY PROCEEDINGS BY COACHILLIN HOLDINGSLLC, KENNETH DICKERSON, INDIAN CANYON & 18TH PROPERTY OWNERS, KIRSTEN DICKERSON, KATHERINE DICKERSON

This complaint for: (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (3) breach of fiduciary duty, (4) breach of fiduciary duty, (5) breach of the CC&Rs of Indian Canyon & 18th Property Owners Association, (6) real estate seller's nondisclosure, (7) intentional misrepresentation, (8) negligent misrepresentation, (9) reformation, (10) declaratory relief, and (11) injunction are based on and/or arise out of the Plaintiff Alpenglow Management Group LLC, Brightside Estate Holdings

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

ANGELA WHITE VS ROBERT KARDASHIAN ET AL

Motion For Summary Judgment As a preliminary matter, Defendants argue that all of Chyna’s claims against them fail because she has no evidence of damages. (Defendants’ Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (“UMF”) Nos. 80-93, 103-109, 131.) Defendants primarily present evidence regarding Chyna’s contract with E! to show that she did not lose any money, because the contract was an option contract and therefore E! was under no obligation to follow through with it. (UMF Nos. 80-92, 103-108.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

CHAVEZ VS HIRSCH

In addition, paragraph 22 within the preliminary allegations alleges: "Defendants' policies have also failed to reimburse Plaintiff for all necessary business expenses, including but not limited to mileage incurred traveling to and from work sites, cell phone expenses in, inter alia, communicating with management, parking expenses at work sites, and other travel expenses.

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ALICIA E. ROBERTS VS BANK OF AMERICA

An injunction is a remedy, not a cause of action.” (Marlin v. Aimco Venezia, LLC (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 154, 162.) Defendants demur to the seventh cause of action arguing that declaratory relief is not a cause of action. Plaintiff, in opposition, argues that it is a cause of action and also argues that demurrer is not a proper method of disposing of a claim for declaratory relief.

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

PINE MANOR INVESTORS LLC VS. FPI MANAGEMENT INC

The parties shall report on the status of the motion for preliminary approval of settlement, and if such motion has been granted, the estimated date when a motion for final approval is expected. Pursuant to Local Rule 1.06(B), parties requesting to be heard must call the court and opposing parties by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing.

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

WAYNE YOUNG VS. LE TRAM BAO

"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 Civ. Proc. 533.

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

CHAVEZ VS HIRSCH

In addition, paragraph 22 within the preliminary allegations alleges: "Defendants' policies have also failed to reimburse Plaintiff for all necessary business expenses, including but not limited to mileage incurred traveling to and from work sites, cell phone expenses in, inter alia, communicating with management, parking expenses at work sites, and other travel expenses.

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

SANTA FE ART COLONY TENANTS ASSOCIATION, INC. A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION VS ART COLONY PROPERTY LLC, A DELAWARE LIMINTED LIABILITY COMPANY

“After this burden is met, or where there is no dispute concerning the preliminary facts, the burden shifts to the party opposing the privilege to show either the claimed privilege does not apply, an exception exists, or there has been an express or implied waiver.” (Venture Law Group, supra at 102.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ALISON SMITH VS CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA

On October 25, 2019, City filed a cross-complaint for: (1) preliminary and permanent injunction for abatement of public nuisance; (2) declaratory relief; and (3) quantum meruit against Alison and Paul Smith. B. Motion on Calendar On April 24, 2020, Defendant/Cross-Complainant City filed a motion to compel Alison Smith’s further responses to Requests for Production, sets one and two (“RPD”).

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MICHAEL KADENACY VS MICHAEL FRAWLEY, ET AL.

PRELIMINARY COMMENT: Defendants’ demurrer is filed in violation of California Rules of Court because their memorandum exceeds 15 pages, was filed without leave of court, was filed without tables of contents or authorities, and fails to include line numbers. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 2.108, 3.1113(d)-(g).) Although Defendant Michael Frawley is representing himself in pro per, he is, in fact been licensed as an attorney in California since 1982.

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

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 20, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA V. SUMMERLAND MARKET, INC., ET AL.

BACKGROUND: Plaintiff the People of the State of California (the “People”) bring this action for injunction and civil penalties against defendant Summerland Market, Inc. (“SMI”) and defendant Elian Hanna (“Hanna”) for allegedly violating the laws and regulations relating to the operation of underground storage tanks and the handling and management of hazardous materials and waste. SMI operates a gas station and mini-market located at 2285 Lillie Avenue, Summerland, California 93067.

  • Hearing

    Oct 19, 2020

  « 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.