Source: https://trellis.law/ca/motion-type/application-for-temporary-restraining-order-tro-311
Timestamp: 2020-07-12 05:59:45
Document Index: 764558381

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 527', '§ 513', '§ 527', '§ 527', '§ 533', '§527', '§ 11227']

Application for Temporary Restraining Order?
How to get a Temporary Restraining Order?
The court may issue a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) to preserve the status quo or prevent irreparable harm pending the hearing of an application for preliminary injunction on notice. (Gray v. Bybee (1943) 60 Cal.App.2d 564, 571.)
A TRO may issue when “[i]t appears from facts shown by affidavit or by the verified complaint that great or irreparable injury will result to the applicant before the matter can be heard on notice.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 527(c)(1).)
“[T]rial courts should evaluate two interrelated factors when deciding whether or not to issue [a restraining order]. The first is the likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits at trial. The second is the interim harm that the plaintiff is likely to sustain if the [restraining order] were denied as compared to the harm that the defendant is likely to suffer if the [order] were issued.” (Church of Christ in Hollywood v. Super. Ct. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1244, 1251.) “The trial court's determination must be guided by a mix of the potential-merit and interim-harm factors; the greater the plaintiff's showing on one, the less must be shown on the other to support a restraining order.... Of course, the scope of available preliminary relief is necessarily limited by the scope of the relief likely to be obtained at trial on the merits.... A trial court may not grant a restraining order, regardless of the balance of interim harm, unless there is some possibility that the plaintiff would ultimately prevail on the merits of the claim.” (Id. at 1251–1252.)
TRO Ex Parte
The court may issue a TRO ex parte where plaintiff has established the probable validity of his claim to possession of the property, provided the appropriate undertaking and “has established the probability that there is an immediate danger that the property claimed may become unavailable to levy by reason of being transferred, concealed, or removed or may become substantially impaired in value.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 513.010.)
“A TRO, like a preliminary injunction, is by design to preserve the status quo pending the evidentiary hearing to determine whether to issue a permanent injunction.” (Scripps Health v. Marin (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 324, 334.) Thus, the time frame for determination of TRO issues is to protect the status quo until a hearing on a preliminary injunction; “the burden [is] on plaintiffs, as the parties seeking injunctive relief, to show all elements necessary to support issuance of a preliminary injunction.” (O’Connell v. Super. Ct. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1452, 1481.)
“The party who obtained the temporary restraining order shall, within five days from the date the temporary restraining order is issued or two days prior to the hearing, whichever is earlier, serve on the opposing party a copy of the complaint if not previously served, the order to show cause stating the date, time, and place of the hearing, any affidavits to be used in the application, and a copy of the points and authorities in support of the application. The court may for good cause, on motion of the applicant or on its own motion, shorten the time required by this paragraph for service on the opposing party.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 527(d)(2).)
“When the matter first comes up for hearing, if the party who obtained the temporary restraining order is not ready to proceed, or if the party has failed to effect service as required by paragraph (2), the court shall dissolve the temporary restraining order.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 527(d)(3).)
“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.) 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.)
Useful Rulings on Application for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ET AL VS 15319 AVALON
the people of the state of claifornia, et al. Plaintiffs, vs. 15319 avalon properties llc, et al. Defendants. Case No.: BC 719050 Hearing Date: May 16, 2019 Hearing Time: 8:30 a.m. [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Background Plaintiffs the People of the State of California, by and Mary...
..known as Avalon, and Amanda Shipkey (collectively, “Defendants”). The FAC asserts causes of action for violations of various County Codes, violation of the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (“MAUCRSA”), for abatement, and for unlawful business practices stemming from Defendants’ ownership and operation of a cannabis dispensary at the property located at 15319 South Avalon...
Montecito Care & More, Inc., et al. v. Dorota Lositzki
Nature of Proceedings: Ex Parte Hearing Temporary Restraining Orders & Preliminary Injunction Montecito Care & More, Inc., et al., v. Lositzki (Judge Sterne) Case No. 19CV03247 Hearing Date: January 27, 2020 HEARING: Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause re Preliminary Injunction ATTORNEYS: For Plaintiffs Montecito Care & More, Inc., Radoslaw Laszuk,...
..judice to the filing of a noticed motion for preliminary injunction. Background: On June 21, 2019, plaintiff Montecito Care & More, Inc. (MCM) filed its original complaint in this action against defendant Dorota Lositzki asserting four causes of action: (1) trespass; (2) breach of contract; (3) ejectment; and (4) breach of fiduciary duty. On July 8, 2019, MCM filed a “Notice of Errata” stating...
SCARLETT VS LENNAR HOMES EX PARTE HEARING RE /FROM DIRECTLY COMMUNICATING WITH
The plaintiffs’ ex parte application for a temporary restraining order is granted. The proposed order is not signed. Counsel for plaintiffs shall provide a proper form of a temporary restraining order and of an order to show cause re issuance of a preliminary injunction. Analysis: Civil Code section 913 is conditioned upon the delivery of either a notice of claim or a written representation lette...
..ion to stipulate to a stay of proceedings. The Court has no doubt that the builder knows that the plaintiffs in the action are represented by counsel. The conduct alleged by the plaintiffs appears be acts undertaken on the defendant’s behalf and appears to violate section 913. Given that the conduct appears to be resulting in the unilateral termination of the relationship between the plaintiffs a...
Santander Consumer USA v. Aparicio
Motion: Plaintiff’s Application for a Temporary Restraining Order Plaintiff’s Application for a Writ of Possession. Tentative Ruling: To deny the Application for a Temporary Restraining Order and for a Writ of Possession. This denial is without prejudice to Plaintiff bringing these applications on a more compete evidentiary record. Explanation: Whether a writ of possession is to be granted is gove...
..y injunction pursuant to Section 515.010, subdivision (b), a Plaintiff must show: (1) The plaintiff has established the probable validity of his claim to possession of the property. (2) The plaintiff has provided an undertaking as required by Section 515.010. (3) The plaintiff has established the probability that there is an immediate danger that the property claimed may become unavailable to levy...
LISA HASTINGS VS. ABRAHAM KEVORKIAN, ET AL
9. EC064909 LISA HASTINGS v ABRAHAM KEVORKIAN et al Motion for Reconsideration This case arises from the Plaintiff’s claim that the Defendants have exceeded the use of an easement for ingress and egress on the Plaintiff’s property by parking on the easement and by harassing her. Trial is set for March 13, 2017. At this hearing, the Defendants requests that the Court...
..by filing an application within 10 days after service of the notice of entry of the order. The application must be based on new or different facts, circumstances, or law, and be made to the same judge that made the order (italics added for emphasis). The party making the application must state by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were ma...
ALLY FINANCIAL, INC. VS. KARAPET DISHIGRIKYAN, ET AL
Watson v Dugas APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF POSSESSION Calendar: 19 Case No: EC064808 Date: 1/20/17 MP: Plaintiff, Charles Watson, administrator of estate of James Watson RP: Defendant, Annette Dugas RELIEF REQUESTED: Writ of Possession for motor vehicles, motorcycles, collectibles, mail, tools, machinery, and computer DISCUSSION: This case arises from the Plaintiff’s claim that the...
..sion for January 20, 2017. The order indicates that the temporary restraining order will be discharged on January 20, 2017. The Plaintiff requests a writ of possession in order to obtain possession of the following items of personal property: 1) 2 motorcycles; 2) 7 motor vehicles; 3) 1 boat; 4) two race trailers; 5) two custom race cars; 6) an engine block; 7) unidentified tools; 8) unidenti...
Recent Rulings on Application for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)
1-25 of 3107 results
Civil Case Management Conference (61)
Demurrer / Motion To Strike (82)
Ex Parte (71)
Motion Hearing (Civil) (216)
Osc - Non-Sanction (10)
Osc - Sanctions (9)
A. James Robertson Ii (48)
Andrew P Banks (7)
Colleen Sterne (85)
Gloria White-Brown (36)
Harold E. Kahn (69)
J. William Mclafferty (19)
James C. Chalfant (169)
James L. Crandall (36)
Judith Craddick (27)
Loretta Giorgi (12)
Patrick J. Mahoney (27)
Ronald E. Quidachay (141)
Ralph C. Hofer (61)
Rebecca Susan Riley (18)
Robert S. Draper (19)
Thomas Anderle (242)
Timothy Taylor (209)
Contra Costa County, CA (154)
Los Angeles County, CA (810)
Riverside County, CA (53)
San Diego County, CA (502)
San Francisco County, CA (435)
Santa Barbara County, CA (423)
Ventura County, CA (233)
procedural history On February 25, 2020, Gayeva filed the Complaint, alleging three causes of action: Temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction enjoining Defendants’ foreclosure sale set for March 24, 2020 Unfair business practices Declaratory relief On February 28, 2020, Gayeva filed the instant Application for Order to Show Cause; a Temporary Restraining Order re: Preliminary and Permanent Injunction Enjoining Defendants’ Foreclosure Sale set for March 24, 2020.
The circumstances here are different, where defendants have not failed to appear for any hearings on dispositive motions and have been actively engaged in the case, as demonstrated by the many emails attached as exhibits to both parties’ papers, but neglected to file timely responsive pleadings amidst dealing with other issues related to a TRO and preliminary injunction stipulation. (See Carrasco v.
As a preliminary matter, the Court notes defendants Athas Capital Group, Inc. and The Rama Fund, LLC (“Defendants”) specially appeared to oppose the TRO, which was granted on 3/17/20 (ROA 39—03/17/20 Minute Order).
IN THE MATTER OF RONALD CHARLES GILCHRIST
On 3/3/20, the Court granted an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order and an OSC re preliminary injunction against the sale of the real property located at 1342 Arcane St., Simi Valley. The OSC hearing was continued from 3/19/20 to 4/9/20 to this date. As of 7/5/20, no notice of this continued hearing date has been filed by Petitioner.
Request for judicial notice Plaintiff filed a request for judicial notice in support of her ex parte application for a TRO for exhibits 1 – 9. These exhibits are judicially noticeable as recorded documents. Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is GRANTED. Defendant requests judicial notice of exhibits A – H. These exhibits are also judicially noticeable as recorded documents. Defendant’s request for judicial notice is GRANTED.
The reply papers document additional instances that occurred after the issuance of the temporary restraining order. [See declarations of Plaintiff Naseem Salem, Randall Dibb (neighbor and Bales' Airbnb "manager"), Elizabeth Dibb (neighbor/Randall's wife), and Linda Cantonwine (another neighbor).] The Sheriff's Department has responded to numerous noise complaints.
Pursuant to CCP §527(d)(2), “the party who obtained the temporary restraining order shall, within five days from the date the temporary restraining order is issued or two days prior to the hearing, whichever is earlier, serve on the opposing party a copy of the complaint if not previously served, the order to show cause stating the date, time, and place of the hearing, any affidavits to be used in the application, and a copy of the points and authorities in support of the application.”
On May 22, 2020, the court granted Plaintiff’s ex parte application for a TRO and OSC re: preliminary injunction. Defendant appeared at the ex parte hearing and filed an opposing declaration of Robert McAllister. The court set the OSC for hearing on July 9, 2020, and set a briefing schedule. Counsel waived notice of the ruling. On June 4, 2020, the court granted in part Plaintiff’s ex parte application for an order enforcing the court’s May 22, 2020, TRO and to hold Defendant in contempt of court.
In May 2019, plaintiffs sought a TRO enjoining a foreclosure. ROA 46-51. Defendants Rajesh Patel/Inn Lending filed opposition stating no foreclosure sale was pending or contemplated. ROA 52. The court denied the TRO request and set the case for hearing on preliminary injunction on August 23, 2019. ROA 56-58. Plaintiffs also filed a motion seeking the appointment of a receiver (ROA 83-85).
MELE HAMALA VS WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO WELLS FARGO BANK SOUTHWEST, N,A,, ET AL.
On December 3, 2018, plaintiff filed the complaint, along with an ex parte TRO, which was granted. The OSC re preliminary injunction was set for hearing on January 9, 2019. Id., ¶28. Soon thereafter, Wells Fargo removed the action to federal court. Id. ¶31. Without the TRO in place, on February 4, 2019, Barrett Daffin foreclosed on the property.
“Whenever the existence of a nuisance is shown in an action brought under this article to the satisfaction of the court or judge thereof, either by verified complaint or affidavit, the court or judge shall allow a temporary restraining order or injunction to abate and prevent the continuance or recurrence of the nuisance.” (Penal Code § 11227, subd. (a).)
On February 11, 2020, the court granted Plaintiff’s ex parte application for a TRO and OSC re: preliminary injunction. By stipulation, the OSC was continued to April 7, 2020. Due to conditions and orders related to Covid-19, the OSC was eventually continued to June 25, 2020. The TRO was extended until June 25, 2020. On June 18, 2020, Defendant Hague filed and served an opposition to the OSC.
To issue preliminary injunctions, with the same terms as those requested in the applications for temporary restraining order, filed January 16, 2020.
XIAOHONG M. BROUTHERS VS MANHATTAN HOUSE, LP, ET AL.
GURNICK ACADEMY OF MEDICAL ARTS VS. BOARD OF VOCATIONAL NURSING & PHYCHIATRIC TECHNICIANS
This matter is scheduled for an Ex Parte Application for a temporary restraining order on July 10, 2020, at 3:00 p.m. Absent proper proof of personal service or waiver thereof, and compliance with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1204, the Court will not hear this matter. Zoom Instructions: - This matter is set for a court hearing/appearance using the Zoom application.
Restraining Order Enjoining the Non-Judicial Foreclosure and for an Order to Show Cause as to Why a Preliminary Injunction Should Not be Granted.
On July 16, 2019, the Court granted Judgment Creditors’ motion to amend the third judgment to add Apex Real Estate Management LLC (“Apex RE”) and Art, Commerce and Manufacturing Solutions, LLC (“Art Commerce”) as judgment debtors.[1] On December 17, 2019, Judgment Creditors filed an ex parte application (“the Application”) for an Order to Show Cause Why Appointment of Receiver Should Not Be Made and Temporary Restraining Order.