Source: https://trellis.law/ca/motion-type/motion-to-dissolve-preliminary-injunction-365/2
Timestamp: 2020-08-15 00:05:14
Document Index: 96806126

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 430', '§ 335', '§ 1367', '§ 128', '§ 128', '§ 128', '§ 2018']

JP COHEN LLC VS RYAN A CHAICHI
Evidentiary Objections As a preliminary note, the Cross-Defendants object to all declarations Chaichi submits in support of his opposition. Specifically, the Cross-Defendants argue that Chaichi, Joann Chaichi and attorney T. Khan’s declarations are all inadmissible to support his opposition because they were not executed and instead only include typed names for each declarant.
Motion for Preliminary Injunction On February 21, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction.
LONG TENG GAO, ET AL. V. BETHANY LIOU, ET AL.
On or about 12 July 2019, a majority of the limited partners of defendant Cupertino Fund voted to dissolve defendant Cupertino Fund to facilitate the prompt return of Gao Plaintiffs’ funds. (FAC, ¶49.) Defendants Liou and GCRC failed to report on the vote and failed to promptly dissolve defendant Cupertino Fund. (FAC, ¶50.)
Judge Cynthia C. Lie
SONIA GARCIA VS. VENTURA COASTAL LLC
TENTATIVE RULING FOR AUGUST 13, 2020 ON MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT The court grants preliminary approval of the class settlement, but is inclined to reduce the class representative fee to $2500.
TEJERO VS. NRG ENERGY SERVICES
HEARING ON MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT FILED BY AARON TEJERO JR. * TENTATIVE RULING: * Plaintiff Aaron Tejero, Jr., moves for preliminary approval of his class action and PAGA settlement. A. Background and Settlement Terms The original complaint was filed May 25, 2018. It is a class action complaint alleging failure to pay wages and/or overtime, failure to provide meal periods and rest breaks, and failure to pay for time or expenses associated with obtaining mandatory drug tests.
Discussion Meet and Confer As a preliminary matter, the Court finds Rizi has satisfied the meet and confer requirement of CCP §§ 430.41, 435.5. (Morgan Decl. ¶ 3.) Second and Fourth Causes of Action – Negligence and Unruh Civil Rights Act Negligence requires duty, breach of duty, proximate cause, and damages. (Peredia v. HR Mobile Servs. Inc. (2018) 25 Cal.Ap.5th 680, 687.)
Injunction The second Request for Judicial Notice requests that the Court judicially notice Defendant Masoud Khalili’s Responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission, Set No.
LEWIS VS WESTERN DENTAL SERVICES INC
Preliminary Matters Although defendant provided statutory notice of the hearing, plaintiff Britanya Lewis failed to file or serve any opposition. ROA ## 94 (notice rescheduling hearing), 95 (notice of non-opposition). Given the lack of opposition, it appears that plaintiff concedes the merits of the demurrer. The Court notes that while plaintiff was given leave to amend, she actually filed two amended complaints. ROA ## 56, 57.
PARMANAND KUMAR VS FRIENDLY HILLS ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOC.
Similarly, “an injunction may not issue unless the alleged misconduct is ongoing or likely to occur.” (People ex rel. Herrera v. Stender (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 614, 630, internal citation omitted.) In his request for declaratory relief, Plaintiff cites to past wrongs. (TAC, ¶ 119.) Some of these wrongs present ongoing harms, like the inability to access records and the inability to turn his lot into three lots for financial gain. Accordingly, the court OVERRULES the demurrer to this cause of action.
HENRICHS VS TAYLOR
Preliminary Matters Although plaintiff did not file a traditional opposition to the motion, her counsel filed an opposing declaration. ROA #147. There is no prejudice in the Court considering this declaration, as moving party filed a reply ("supplemental response") to it. ROA # 149. More importantly, the Court is directed to consider "all matters relevant to a proper determination of the motion," which clearly includes a declaration. Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.1342(e)(1) (emphasis added).
MCMILLAN VS CHAKER
As a preliminary matter, the claim appears to be barred by the applicable statute of limitations. (Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1.) Plaintiffs' claim is not saved by the tolling provision at 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d), because based on the facts alleged, Plaintiffs' claim against Nicole Chaker expired on February 26, 2016 and Plaintiffs did not file their Complaint in U.S. District Court until August 29, 2016. Plaintiffs also assert this cause of action is either tolled by Code of Civil Procedure section 351.
MUSGROVE VS. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
The issue of whether or not the case should have been dismissed at the OSC is not relevant to the preliminary relief sought.
RAMIRO MORALES OLIVAS VS. EDCO WASTE AND RECYCLING SERVICES INC [E-FILE]
The Court GRANTS Preliminary Approval. The parties to appear to set a Final Approval date.
FLORENCE FLEMING VS ANNIE CAMPBELL, ET AL.
If a preliminary injunction is not issued, Plaintiff will lose the Property. This harm is mitigated by the fact that the Property is not Plaintiff’s residence and her admission that she plans to sell it. Fleming Decl., ¶12. If a preliminary injunction is issued, Defendants will suffer only monetary harm. The balance of hardships favors issuance of an injunction. F. Conclusion The application for a preliminary injunction is granted. Plaintiff does not discuss the matter of a bond.
RIVERA VS. LYON MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC.
Such an agreement “also violates Civil Code section 3513’s injunction that ‘a law established for a public reason cannot be contravened by a private agreement.’” (Iskanian, supra, 59 Cal.4th at 383).
SANDY D HANBY VS ELITE SHOW SERVICES INC [E-FILE]
Given that Plaintiff worked a single shift in the notice period and the issue of whether she suffered a Labor Code violation is in dispute, the court finds it is in the interests of judicial economy to determine the issue of standing as a preliminary matter. The court will hear from the parties as to how to proceed. Defendant Elite Show Services, Inc.'s Motion for Protective Order Regarding Plaintiff Sandy Hanby's Discovery Requests is granted.
MAYNARD VS GORDON
He claims the evidence shows Officer Gonzalez failed to properly admonish him regarding implied consent, Officer Gonzalez created officer-induced confusion regarding whether the preliminary alcohol screening test ("PAS") petitioner took satisfied the chemical test requirements, and petitioner had a right to an attorney and right to remain silent as applied to the chemical test. Id. at pp.13-18.
ENTERTAINMENT REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS MAGNOLIA REAL ESTATE CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
Merits The Court's March 30, 2020 preliminary ruling indicated that the damage award in this instant case should be subject to a 10% interest cap, with interest accruing starting February 13, 2020, the date of the verdict.
VASQUEZ VS. DELTA FRAMING, INC.
The Court has received and considered Plaintiffs’ renewed motion for preliminary approval of class action and PAGA settlement. Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval is GRANTED as follows. Plaintiffs to submit an updated proposed order within 5 court days, showing updated dates in paragraph 15 to allow sufficient time for the mailing of, and putative class member responses to, the Notice Packet. Moving party to give notice, including to the LWDA.
SALVADOR AGUIRRE VS WESTROCK SERVICES LLC., ET AL.
As a preliminary matter, the Court finds the 21-day “safe harbor” requirement has been met. (CCP §§ 128.5(f)(1)(B), 128.7(c)(1).) Sanctions Pursuant to CCP § 128.5 Defendants seek $57,167.14 in monetary sanctions pursuant to CCP § 128.5 against Plaintiff and his counsel as a result of alleged bad faith conduct in filing and prosecuting the instant case. In their motion, Defendants further request dismissal of the entire action with prejudice.
PASTRANA VS EDER
An attorney resisting discovery of a witness statement based on absolute privilege must make a preliminary or foundational showing that disclosure would reveal his or her "impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal research or theories." (§ 2018.030, subd. (a).) Coito, 54 Cal.4th at 495–496. The court finds Eder fails to make a showing that the surveillance footage at issue contains his attorneys' "impressions, conclusions, opinions or legal research of theories."