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

201-225 of 10000 results

NANCY L. ROJO, MS. VS ROBERT M. ROCHA, ET AL.

Timeliness As a preliminary matter, the Court will address Rojo’s claim that this motion is untimely. Section § 396b of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that “the action may [] be tried in the court where commenced, unless the defendant, at the time he or she answers, demurs, or moves to strike, or, at his or her option, without answering, demurring, or moving to strike and within the time otherwise allowed to respond to the complaint.”

  • Hearing

    Nov 19, 2020

TYLER V. WESTERN MANAGEMENT, LLC

Any CourtCall fees for an appearance by an objecting class member will be paid by class counsel. 8 The motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement is CONTINUED to 9 December 2, 2020, at 1:30 p.m.

  • Hearing

    Nov 18, 2020

VENCLOSE INC., ET AL. V. COVIDIEN LP, ET AL. (LEAD CASE) [CONSOLIDATED WITH CASE NO. 18CV327382]

As a result of 27 a preliminary injunction against Esch in the Massachusetts action, Esch is no longer Venclose’s 28 CEO and is not involved in the business. (Id. at ¶ 83.) Defendants alleged in the Massachusetts 1 action that Esch used Defendants’ confidential information to develop the Venclose product. (Id. 2 at ¶ 58.) 3 On December 28, 2016, Venclose filed a declaratory judgment suit in the U.S. District 4 Court, Northern District of California, against Defendants. (SAC, ¶ 84.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 18, 2020

PAXON VS. E2 CONSULTING

Such preliminary pleading skirmishes have been found not to constitute litigation of the merits for purposes of the waiver analysis. (See, Groom v. Health Net (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1189, 1194-98, cited with approval in St. Agnes.) The Court finds that Paxon has not engaged in litigation activities so significant as to weigh substantially in favor of a finding of waiver. A-3. Trial Date and Delay. The third St.

  • Hearing

    Nov 18, 2020

JOHNNY BUSTOS, AN INDIVIDUAL AND FIFTY PERCENT SHAREHOLDER AT ALL PERTINENT TIMES OF B.E.B. AND ASSOCIATES, INC., CONSULTING VS ASGHAR ESMAEILI, ET AL.

Although each of the causes of action are purportedly directed against “[a]ll [d]efendants,” Plaintiff, in ¶8(u) of the section titled “Preliminary Allegations,” stated as follows: “In addition, in or about July 2019, the parties entered into a written agreement with third parties, one or more, wherein and whereby certain theretofore unpaid funds owed to Plaintiffs in the principal amount of not less than $36,537.50 were paid into the client trust account of named defendant and attorney Steven L.

  • Hearing

    Nov 18, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE VS VARGAS

Court grants request for preliminary injunction. No opposition filed.

  • Hearing

    Nov 18, 2020

ANTHONY THOMAS VS LAKEWOOD VILLAGE TOWNHOMES H.O.A, ET AL.

.: 20NWCV00360 HEARING: 11/18/20 JUDGE: OLIVIA ROSALES #6 TENTATIVE ORDER Plaintiff Thomas’s motion for preliminary injunction is GRANTED. Moving Party to give NOTICE. Plaintiff Thomas moves for a preliminary injunction to enjoin Defendants from foreclosing on his property.

  • Hearing

    Nov 18, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

XERA HEALTH LLC VS SCHEELE

Noting that 'preliminary negotiations or an agreement for future negotiations are not the functional equivalent of a valid, subsisting agreement' we concluded the letter 'did not constitute a binding contract, but was merely "an agreement to agree" which cannot be made the basis of a cause of action.'

  • Hearing

    Nov 18, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

CERTIFIED NURSING REGISTRY, INC., ET AL. VS SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

Plaintiffs request: (1) declaratory relief that Plaintiffs’ statutory rights were violated by Defendants’ conduct; (2) disqualification of the Trial Judge in the Underlying Action; (3) vacating the judgment in the Underlying Action; (4) staying of all proceedings in the Underlying Action; and (5) a preliminary injunction restraining the enforcement of the judgment in the Underlying Action.

  • Hearing

    Nov 18, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

AVERY SCHWARTZ VS DIGNITY HEALTH

Silverstein allegedly set forth preliminary accommodation proposals Plaintiff would need to prevent a relapse when he returned, including: “(1) Change in advisor; (2) Acceptance of the time spent in ICU Rotation accepted as fulfillment of requirement; (3) Future letters of recommendation to be positive without mention of medical leave; (4) Acceptance of completion of PGYI1 requirements fulfilled as of 6/30/2017.” Id.

  • Hearing

    Nov 18, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

EULICES JIMENEZ VS BIO-NUTRACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL.

In the FAC, Plaintiff seeks “a preliminary and permanent injunction against the appropriate job position and to purge Plaintiff’s employment records of all derogatory information and to preclude the dissemination of that information to prospective employers, employees or other persons.” (FAC, Prayer, ¶ 7.) Defendant argues that “this prayer for relief is uncertain” because “[i]t is unclear what Plaintiff is seeking with regard to an ‘injunction against the appropriate job position.’”

  • Hearing

    Nov 18, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

FONTECCHIO V. FAMILY CARE NETWORK, INC.

Conclusion The parties have generally satisfied the procedural requirements for preliminary approval of a class action settlement, and the settlement amount appears fair and reasonable. The Court intends to grant preliminary approval of the settlement. If this Court grants preliminary approval, its order must include the time, date, and place of the final approval hearing; the notice to be given to the class; and any other matters deemed necessary for the proper conduct of a settlement hearing. (Cal.

  • Hearing

    Nov 18, 2020

ANDREW COCHRAN VS CP IV PARTHENIA, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

"The ultimate questions on a motion for a preliminary injunction are (1) whether the plaintiff is 'likely to suffer greater injury from a denial of the injunction than the defendants are likely to suffer from its grant,' and (2) whether there is 'a reasonable probability that the plaintiffs will prevail on the merits.'" (Huong Que, Inc. v. Luu (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 400, 408.) Procedurally, an application for a preliminary injunction must be based upon sufficient evidence. (Code Civ.

  • Hearing

    Nov 18, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

EULICES JIMENEZ VS BIO-NUTRACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL.

In the FAC, Plaintiff seeks “a preliminary and permanent injunction against the appropriate job position and to purge Plaintiff’s employment records of all derogatory information and to preclude the dissemination of that information to prospective employers, employees or other persons.” (FAC, Prayer, ¶ 7.) Defendant argues that “this prayer for relief is uncertain” because “[i]t is unclear what Plaintiff is seeking with regard to an ‘injunction against the appropriate job position.’”

  • Hearing

    Nov 18, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

C W DRIVER INC VS LEGENDARY STRUCTURES INC ET AL

Expert Designation As a preliminary matter, Owners, CW Driver, JD Reinforcing, and LME all filed evidentiary objections to the Declaration of Paredes for, among other objections, constituting improper expert opinion testimony.

  • Hearing

    Nov 18, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

NAOMI MOJADDIDI, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF, ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC VS. ELITE DINERS, LLC

Defendants are amenable to a court-sponsored early settlement conference after preliminary investigation and discovery is completed. Should the parties become interested in the future, the Court advises that Department 59 has a Voluntary Settlement Conference program. The Court sets the next Case Management Conference for June 11, 2021, at 10:30 a.m., by remote appearance in Department 40.

  • Hearing

    Nov 18, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

MARKS VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO [E-FILE]

At plaintiff's insistence, the court calendared the case for a motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. Id. No such motion was filed. Instead, the City sought judgment on the pleadings as to its Public Utilities Department and its City Council (claiming they are not legal entities separate from the municipal corporation itself, and thus not proper defendants). ROA 35-39. Plaintiff previously sought to default the City Council, but this effort was rebuffed. ROA 29-31.

  • Hearing

    Nov 18, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

NAGASAWA V. FOX

(Ruiz) (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 836, 846, states, “Properly understood, Condee holds that a petitioner is not required to authenticate an opposing party’s signature on an arbitration agreement as a preliminary matter or in the event the authenticity of the signature is not challenged. [Citations.] Though Ruiz did not deny that the electronic signature on the 2011 agreement was his, he claimed he did not recall signing the 2011 agreement and would not have signed it had it been presented to him.

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2020

BEDFORD, ET AL. V. COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, ET AL.

This includes the preliminary approval on December 13, 2019 made by the Agricultural Review Board, the February 26, 2020, appeal to the Planning Commission (which approved the preliminary approval of the design on 3 to 2 vote), and the March 31, 2020 appeal to the Board of Supervisors (on 4 to 0 vote), which approved the Planning Commission’s preliminary approval.

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2020

PERKINS V. EXCLUSIVE WIRELESS, INC.

Motion: by plaintiff for class certification and preliminary approval of class settlement Tentative Ruling: To continue the hearing to March 18, 2021, at 3:30 p.m. in Department 501. To order defendant to appear at the March 18 hearing and show cause, if there is any, why it should not be sanctioned for failing to obey the court’s prior Order that defendant pay complex case fees on or before October 15, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

HSIN-YU WANG VS XIAOQIN KELLY LING, ET AL.

As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff filed a Stipulation on September 3, 2020, signed by both parties, which reflects that Defendants do not intend to oppose the motion. Indeed, as of the filing of the stipulation, no opposition has been filed. Distribution of the Civil Penalties Under the settlement agreement attached as Exhibit A to the declaration of counsel H. Mark Madnick, Defendant will pay $64,000 to Plaintiff in compromise of her individual claims.

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

RENE VILLA VS HANDLE FINANCIAL INC, A CORPORATION, ET AL.

PRELIMINARY COMMENTS: Plaintiff admits in his opposition that the Fifth and Sixth causes of action – the contract causes of action – need to be amended. The Court does not understand why Plaintiff did not simply agree to amend these causes of action when meeting-and-conferring with defense counsel before the demurrer was filed.

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

RECON INDUSTRIES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS COMMUNITY ENFORCEMENT PATROL INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

On November 10, 2020, Caio Ribeiro served and filed a notice of non-opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. If Plaintiff cannot show at the hearing that Caio Ribeiro was personally served with the moving papers, the preliminary injunction is denied. If Plaintiff can make that showing, the following analysis of the merits applies. Legal Standard for Preliminary Injunction The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo pending a decision on the merits.

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

DOUGLAS MERIDA VS NJR THREE PROPERTIES LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

Conclusion The application for a preliminary injunction is denied.

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2020

GHAEEM VS NAMVAR

As a preliminary matter, the court finds that plaintiff made a reasonable and good faith attempt to meet and confer before filing the motion. (See Tavakoli Decl., Ex. 3; Tavakoli Reply Decl., Ex. 1.) Turning to the merits, the evidence before the court does not show service of the documents to plaintiff. Although defense counsel asserts in his declaration that "[t]he documents, together with a cover letter, were mailed to Mr.

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  « 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.