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

1-25 of 10000 results

PAUL KRZEMUSKI VS GEORGE ZAKHARIA ET AL

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant Paul Krzemuski moves to dissolve the preliminary injunction that has been in place since February 24, 2017. TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant Paul Krzemuski’s motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction is DENIED. Moving party to give notice, unless waived.

  • Hearing

    Jun 28, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

JULIO BORRUSO ET AL VS. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. ET AL

Ntc Of Mtn And Mtn To Dissolve The Preliminary Injunction Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for Thursday, June 20, 2014, Line 12 - DEFENDANT WELLS FARGO BANK'S Motion To Dissolve The Preliminary Injunction. Defendant's Motion to Dissolve Preliminary Injunction. Hearing Required. = (501/REQ)

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2014

PAUL FELLER VS BANK OF AMERICA ET AL

Nature of Proceedings: Motion to Dissolve Preliminary Injunction Santa Barbara County Superior Court Department 5 Judge Colleen K. Sterne Tentative Ruling August 12, 2013 Case: Paul Feller v. Bank of America, N.A., et al., Case #1385120 Matter: Motion to Dissolve Preliminary Injunction Tentative Ruling: The court grants defendants Bank of America, N.A., ReconTrust Company, NA, motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction issued herein on April 23, 2012.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2013

PAUL FELLER VS BANK OF AMERICA ET AL

Nature of Proceedings: Motion to Dissolve Prelim Injunction Case: Paul Feller v. Bank of America, N.A., et al., Case #1385120, Judge Sterne Hearing Date: March 17, 2014 Matter: Motion to Dissolve Preliminary Injunction Tentative Ruling: The court grants the motion of defendants Bank of America, N.A., and ReconTrust Company, NA, to dissolve the preliminary injunction issued herein on April 23, 2012.

  • Hearing

    Mar 17, 2014

OSCAR ROSALES LASALA, ET AL VS. HSBC BANK USA, NAT'L ASSOC.

This is a material change in the case because there are no longer any claims to resolve for which a preliminary injunction is necessary to preserve the status quo pending a final determination. As a result, the preliminary injunction should be dissolved. Therefore, the court will grant the Defendants’ motion and dissolve the preliminary injunction. 2.

  • Hearing

    Mar 24, 2017

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

HATLEY VS. MULLAN

HEARING ON MOTION TO DISSOLVE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION FILED BY JOYCE L. MULLAN * TENTATIVE RULING: * Defendant Joyce Mullan dba Castlewood Standard Schnauzers (“Mullan”) moves to dissolve preliminary injunction for failure to post bond. Following hearing held on July 12, 2018, the Court granted a preliminary injunction to prevent the alteration of the physical condition or sale of the female Standard Schnauzer puppy.

  • Hearing

    Sep 13, 2018

GASTELUM VS WEST COAST SERVICING INC

On November 30, 2018, the Court granted plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. ROA # 38.

  • Hearing

    Jun 13, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

SHERREL INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC VS G.H. COOPER PROPERTIES

.: SC125434 Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dissolve Stipulated Preliminary Injunction Hearing Date: 10/30/2019 Plaintiffs were members of various LLCs; defendant GHCP was manager. Plaintiffs alleged GHCP improperly distributed the LLCs’ assets. Plaintiffs and GHCP stipulated to a preliminary injunction preventing distribution until the litigation concluded. The matter has resolved, and plaintiffs move to dissolve the injunction and distribute assets.

  • Hearing

    Oct 30, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

GASTELUM VS WEST COAST SERVICING INC

On November 30, 2018, the Court granted plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. ROA # 38.

  • Hearing

    Jun 13, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

GASTELUM VS WEST COAST SERVICING INC

On November 30, 2018, the Court granted plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. ROA # 38.

  • Hearing

    Jun 13, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

INHANCE DIGITAL CORPORATION., A DELAWARE CORPORATION VS MAZIAR FARZAM

Co. (2015) 235 CA4th 453 [the court may not adjudicate the final merits of the case under the guise of issuing a preliminary injunction]; see also Cohen v. Board of Supervisors (1985) 40 C3d 277, 286 [a ruling on an application for preliminary injunction is not an adjudication of the ultimate rights in controversy].) Whether the injunction was properly issued, thus allowing or disallowing recovery on the bond, remains to be seen. Thus, the Court is not inclined to dissolve the bond entirely.

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

SAN DIEGO METROPOLITAN TRANSIT SYSTEM VS. GRAND CENTRAL WEST LLC

The motion to dissolve preliminary injunction, filed by defendant Grand Central West, LLC ("Grand Central") is denied. Preliminary Matters Grand Central's request for the Court to consider the late declaration of Enrique Carmon is denied. MTS's objections to the reply declarations are sustained. The Court has not considered new evidence submitted on reply.

  • Hearing

    Apr 27, 2017

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

SAN DIEGO METROPOLITAN TRANSIT SYSTEM VS. GRAND CENTRAL WEST LLC

The motion to dissolve preliminary injunction, filed by defendant Grand Central West, LLC ("Grand Central") is denied. Preliminary Matters Grand Central's request for the Court to consider the late declaration of Enrique Carmon is denied. MTS's objections to the reply declarations are sustained. The Court has not considered new evidence submitted on reply.

  • Hearing

    Apr 27, 2017

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

ESCALADE CAPITAL GROUP, LLC VS. OLD REPUBLIC TITLE COMPANY

Plaintiff'S Motion To Dissolve Preliminary Injunction And Exonerate Bond Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for Friday, December 9, 2016 line 1. Plaintiffs ESCALADE CAPITAL GROUP, LLC, AVIGNON JULIAN, LLC, and Alice Tse's Motion To Dissolve Preliminary Injunction And Exonerate Bond GRANTED. No opposition filed. The Preliminary injunction is dissolved and the bond is exonerated. = (501/REQ)

  • Hearing

    Dec 09, 2016

WOODARD V. WELLS FARGO BANK, ET AL.

Motion to Dissolve Preliminary Injunction TENTATIVE RULING Defendants’ unopposed motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction is granted. A preliminary injunction must be dissolved if the undertaking is not filed. (Neumann v. Moretti (1905) 146 Cal. 31, 32; ABBA Rubber Co. v. Seaquist (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1, 10; Casitas Inv. Co. v. Charles L. Harney, Inc. (1962) 203 Cal.App.2d 811, 815.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 07, 2019

JOSE CABRERA, ET AL. VS LOIS M. EDWARDS, ET AL.

An order refusing to dissolve a preliminary injunction rests in the sound discretion of the trial court upon a consideration of all the particular circumstances of each individual case and will not be modified or dissolved on appeal except for an abuse of discretion. (In re Butler (2018) 4 Cal.5th 728, 739; People v. Brewer (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 122, 136.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 26, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

TANOUS VS. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC

Motion to Dissolve Preliminary Injunction Tentative Ruling: Defendants Nationstar Mortgage, LLC’s Motion to Dissolve the Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED. Defendant requests judicial notice is GRANTED. The court previously granted the preliminary injunction based on the dual tracking provision of Civil Code section 2923.6(c)(1). There is a material change in the circumstances because Defendant has rescinded the Notice of Default. (RFJN, Exhibit B.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 22, 2017

STUART KAUFMAN VS. RECONSTRUCT COMPANY, N.A. ET AL

Mtn To Dissolve Prelim Injunction Unlawful Detainer Law and Motion Calendar for Thursday, May 24, 2012, line 2. DEFENDANTs RECONSTRUCT COMPANY, N.A., BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON and MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.'s Motion To Dissolve Preliminary Injunction. Grant dissolution of preliminary injunction, failed to post bond. = (501/REQ)

  • Hearing

    May 24, 2012

JOANNE REINHART VS. BANK OF AMERICA N.A., A DELAWARE CORPORATION ET AL

S Motion To Vacate Or Dissolve Preliminary Injunction Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for Thursday, May 16, 2013, line 1. Defendants Bank Of America, N.A. And Recontrust Company,N.A.'s Motion To Vacate Or Dissolve Preliminary Injunction DENIED subject to Plaintiff posting with the Court $136,000 no later than May 17, 2013 by 4 p.m. Proposed order shall reflect that $136,000 can be immediately withdrawn by Defendant.

  • Hearing

    May 16, 2013

BLUE MOUNTAIN ENTER., LLC V. OWEN, ET AL.

Motion to Consolidate; Motion to Bifurcate; Motion to Dissolve Preliminary Injunction TENTATIVE RULING Motion to Dissolve Preliminary Injunction On the Court’s own motion, Defendants’ motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction is continued to February 15, 2019 at 9:00 a.m.

  • Hearing

    Jan 29, 2019

BAY RIDGE PROPERTIES LLC VS. AMERICAN BROKERS CONDUIT CORPORATION ET AL

Notice Of Plaintiff In Interventions Motion To Dissolve Preliminary Injunction Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for Thursday, March 29, 2018, Line 2. INTERVENOR WELLS FARGO, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE'S Motion To Dissolve Preliminary Injunction. DENIED. =(501/REQ)

  • Hearing

    Mar 29, 2018

CATHRYN BLUM ET AL VS. SORG CORPORATION ET AL

Notice Of Motion To Dissolve Or Modify Preliminary Injunction SET FOR HEARING ON THURSDAY, DECEMBER 14, 2006, LINE 9, DEFENDANT TJ PARKER INC.'S Motion To Dissolve Or Modify Preliminary Injunction IS GRANTED AS UNOPPOSED IF MOVANT PROVIDES PROOF OF SERVICE. OTHERWISE, OFF CALENDAR. =(302/REQ/PB)

  • Hearing

    Dec 14, 2006

ALTHEMUS COLEMAN VS. 250 KEARNY STREET, LLC ET AL

Notice Of Motion To Dissolve Preliminary Injunction (Ccp 532 & 533) Unlawful Detainer Law and Motion Calendar for Wednesday, February 29, 2012, line 7. DEFENDANT GITLOW INVESTORS' Motion To Dissolve Preliminary Injunction (Ccp 532 & 533) Hearing Required. (501/REQ)

  • Hearing

    Feb 29, 2012

ROBIN WILSON VS. JUDITH A BOLTER ET AL

Bolters Motion To Dissolve Preliminary Injunction Or For Modification Of Bond Posted By Plaintiff Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for Wednesday, June 19, 2015, line 5. DEFENDANT JUDITH BOLTER'S Motion To Dissolve Preliminary Injunction Or For Modification Of Bond Posted By Plaintiff: OFF CALENDAR, re-noticed for Department 302. (501/REQ)

  • Hearing

    Jun 19, 2015

SALLY K STEINHART VS. PARKVIEW HEIGHTS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION ET AL

Ntc Of Mtn & Mtn To Revoke & Dissolve Conditional Issuance Of A Preliminary Injunction DEFENDANT PARKVIEW HEIGHTS HOMEOWNERS ASSO., Mtn To Revoke & Dissolve Conditional Issuance Of A Preliminary Injunction HEARING REQUIRED.RE COMPLIANCE WITH NOV 27, 2002 MINUTE ORDER.(302/REQ/PB)

  • Hearing

    Apr 30, 2003

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.