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

176-200 of 10000 results

ALTA VISTA SOLUTIONS VS. STATE

SPECIAL SET HEARING ON: OSC RE: WHY PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT ISSU SET BY EX PARTE APP ALTA VISTA SOLUTIONS * TENTATIVE RULING: * This is a further hearing on Alta Vista’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The court issued the preliminary injunction effective October 3, 2018, but allowed Caltrans to file an additional brief to argue why the injunction should be dissolved.

  • Hearing

    Nov 14, 2018

LOVE LAMBS II LLC, ET AL. V. RAVINDRA K. PANDE, ET AL.

Nature of Proceedings: Order to Show Cause Why a Preliminary Injunction Should Not Issue and TRO OSC re preliminary injunction ATTORNEYS: Mack S. Staton of Mullen & Henzell LLP for plaintiffs Love Lambs II, LLC and Courtney Fishkin Service is not yet complete on defendants RULING: The OSC cannot go forward on its merits.

  • Hearing

    May 29, 2018

DOMINO VS. NATIONSTAR

Accordingly, the Court now dissolves Plaintiff’s TRO and the application for the preliminary injunction is accordingly denied.

  • Hearing

    Nov 07, 2016

  • Judge Ed Weil
  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

MARYLIN H. BITNER VS 540-544 ROSSMORE LLC, ET AL.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTION TO DISSOLVE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION On August 20, 2020, the Court continued the hearing on this motion to allow counsel time to meet and confer regarding the scope of work and accommodations to Plaintiff.

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

KABITA CHOUDHURI VS. TODD BELL, ET AL

(ROA) On October 21, 2010, this court entered judgment for defendants against plaintiff (ROA) On February 2, 2011, this court granted defendant’s motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction. (ROA) This court further ordered that “if plaintiff prevails on appeal, the preliminary injunction may be reinstated following an evidentiary hearing.” (ROA) On May 11, 2012, this court received the remittitur from the Court of Appeal affirming the summary judgment in favor of defendants Wells Fargo and Todd Bell.

  • Hearing

    Apr 24, 2019

INDERJIT SINGH NIJJAR ET AL. VS MANRAJ BAINS ET AL.

or Alternatively to Enforce Terms of TRO as a Preliminary Injunction” (“Stipulation”) filed with the court on September 28, 2018.

  • Hearing

    Nov 06, 2018

PRAPAI BENJAUTHRIT VS. BOONSIENG BENJAUTHRIT

If no bond is posted on or before 4:00 p.m. on June 14, 2019, the injunction will dissolve automatically.

  • Hearing

    May 31, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

AMSS LLC VS LOS MEGANOS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION

Nature of Proceedings: Motion Modify/Dissolve Prelim. Injunction Stay # 1417328 AMSS LLC V. LOS MEGANOS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION HEARING DATE: 1/13/14 HEARING: Motion to modify or dissolve preliminary injunction stay TENTATIVE RULING: Deny BACKGROUND: This is an unlawful detainer action that is related to DLG Family Limited Partnership v. Los Meganos Homeowners Association, et al., Santa Barbara County Superior Court case no. 1415519.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2014

ELITE BUSINESS ENTERPRISES VS. SURINDER MANN

The Court has estimated defendants’ attorney fees in opposing this motion, and in bringing any future motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction, at $ 5,000.

  • Hearing

    Aug 08, 2019

SERAFIN QUILO CRUZ VS. BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP

The court's tentative ruling is to: Dissolve TRO and Deny preliminary injunction. CCP 527 (a). Plaintiff has not filed anything establishing that the Orders were served on any Defendantss. Nothing has been filed establishing that the summons, complaint or ex parte papers were served upon Defendants. Plaintiff has not established an ability to reinstate the loan as he presented no copies of the request for default or the notice of sale.

  • Hearing

    Mar 23, 2011

JAMES L ISETT VS. T O SERVICE COMPANY

It is noted that this Preliminary Injunction motion has been opposed by TD Service Co., the sole defendant named in the original complaint, however, it is not clear that it has standing, as it has filed a notice claiming to be a non-participant with non-monetary status. 3. Old wrongs - such as TD Service Co.'s allegedly mistaken sale of the house last fall, despite this court's TRO being in effect, need to be resolved at a trial, not by a Preliminary Injunction.

  • Hearing

    Nov 15, 2010

ALEXANDRA SMITH VS TIMOTHY FLANNERY ET AL

Therefore, the court will dissolve the preliminary injunction.

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2009

ELLEN SUZUKI VS YONEO TAKEHARA, ET AL.

.; (4) Plaintiff Ellen Suzuki’s First Amended Complaint for Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Breach of Buy-Sell Agreement and Breach of Settlement Agreement filed on October 18, 2019 and the exhibits thereto (5) Plaintiff Ellen Suzuki's Memorandum of Points and Authorities re OKA re Preliminary Injunction; and Declarations in Support filed on October 21, 2019 and the exhibits thereto; (6) Plaintiff Ellen Suzuki's Exhibits in Support of Order to Show Cause re Preliminary Injunction filed on October 21, 2019 and the

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

UPENDRA SINGH VS. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.

Defendant notes that Plaintiff recently opposed Defendant's motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction on the grounds that trial was imminent, although he knew of Mr. Bolanos's pending suspension. Finally, Defendant argues that it will be prejudiced through further delay, because as long as the case is ongoing, the injunction remains in place, such that Defendant remains enjoined from foreclosing and enforcing its security interest. Defendant notes that trial has already been continued twice.

  • Hearing

    Dec 14, 2015

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

KAPADIA V. SERVIS ONE, INC.

Plaintiff’s (Elzbieta Kapadia) Motion for Order to Show Cause re Preliminary Injunction Against Defendant Servis One, Inc. dba BSI Financial Services (filed as an Ex Parte Application on 9-30-19) is GRANTED. Butt v.

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2019

GLENN FULLER VS SPITFIRE AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE INC ET AL

Tentative Ruling: The Motion for Preliminary Injunction is denied.

  • Hearing

    Jul 19, 2013

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

AMPRONIX V. RUIZ

The Order to Show Cause regarding Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED in part.

  • Hearing

    Nov 14, 2017

REDDY VS. YOSEMITE CAPITAL, LLC

SPECIAL SET HEARING ON: OSC RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SET BY PURUSHOTHAM REDDY * TENTATIVE RULING: * The hearing is continued by the Court to June 28, 2017, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 9. Plaintiff and plaintiff’s counsel of record, Sean M. Patrick, have not complied with the Court’s order of May 3, 2017. The Court ordered as follows: “Mr. Patrick must withdraw the ‘Notice of Limited Scope Representation’ or substitute back out of this case.” Neither of these two options was exercised.

  • Hearing

    Jun 21, 2017

SERAFIN QUILO CRUZ VS. BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP

Dissolve TRO and Deny preliminary injunction. CCP 527 (a). Plaintiff has not established an ability to reinstate the loan as he presented no copies of the request for default or the notice of sale [which would give the Court an idea of how much is due and owing]. While Plaintiff claims he can reinstate the loan, there are documents in the Court's file which suggests otherwise. Plaintiff has submitted no admissible evidence in support of his claim.

  • Hearing

    May 16, 2011

NORMAN V. ORCHARD MANAGEMENT

Hearing Re: Preliminary Injunction Plaintiff filed an unverified complaint for conversion and preliminary injunction related to defendant Orchid Management’s alleged retention of plaintiff’s 1968 Chevy Nova that is allegedly worth $6,500.

  • Hearing

    Apr 19, 2019

JOPHE JONES V. FOUR JAYS MUSIC COMPANY, ET AL.

This preliminary injunction applies to Jones and Riva, but, as a technical matter, not to Four Jays since it has not yet appeared in the case and was never served with plaintiff’s application.

  • Hearing

    Apr 11, 2016

MICHAEL LAWRENCE KLINE VS MICHAEL DIBACCO

Motion for Preliminary Injunction On October 5, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction. Plaintiff seeks a Preliminary Injunction compelling Defendant to perform affirmative activities.

  • Hearing

    Oct 30, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

WVBAGD, LLC VS GREG GALLETLY, ET AL.

CCP §533 states that to modify or dissolve an injunction, WVBAGD must show that there has been a material change in the facts upon which the injunction was granted, the law has changed, or that the ends of justice would be served by the modification or dissolution of the injunction. In its objection, WVBAGD’s requested relief does not rely on this section, nor does WVBAGD seek to modify or dissolve the terms of the injunction by way of this motion.

  • Hearing

    Nov 28, 2018

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

JTB INVESTMENTS LLC VS DONOVAN

TENTATIVE RULING: Petitioner's Motion for Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED. Plaintiff JTB Investments, LLC ("Plaintiff") seeks a preliminary injunction to prevent the transfer or distribution of any funds from a sale of the property in dispute previously owned by Fanuel Studios, LLC ("Fanuel"). "[T]rial courts should evaluate two interrelated factors when deciding whether or not to issue a preliminary injunction. The first is the likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits at trial.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

There is no reason to dissolve the preliminary injunction. 2. The Bankruptcy Court’s Decision Defendants argue that the dispute is between the Ko Faction and the rightful members of Church. Choi is just a pastor sent by LA Presbytery to fill a vacant position and LAOD is just a tenant. Repl at 3.

  • Hearing

    Nov 12, 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.