Wednesday, March 07, 2007
The Ruling
Mateel Community Center Inc. v. People Productions LLC, Carol Bruno and Tom Dimmick
Plaintiff (Mateel C.C. Inc.) filed an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order and request for an order to show cause re: preliminary injunction.
Defendants (P.P. C.B. & T.D.) filed opposition.
In determining whether to issue a TRO a court must consider the likelihood plaintiff will prevail on the merits at trial, and balance interim harm to each party if the injunction is or is not granted. Interim harm considers the adequacy or inadequacy of other remedies, the extent of irreparable injury, and the need to preserve the status quo. (CCP §526(a); Abrams v. St. John’s Hosp. & Health Center (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 628). The plaintiff has the burden of proof on each issue. (Savage v. Trammell Crow Co. (1990) 223 Cal.App.1562).
The court will deny the application for a TRO finding that the plaintiff has not at this juncture established great or irreparable injury will result, nor that pecuniary compensation would not afford adequate relief. (CCP §526(a) (2) and (4)).
The application for a TRO is denied. An OSC will issue re: preliminary injunction.
Dated March 5, 2007
W. Bruce Watson, Judge of the Superior Court.
Note: an attachment shows that the ruling was executed March 6, 2007 with copies set to lawyers for all parties.
What does it all mean? [Note: an earlier version of this post also included two quotes from legal briefs that I've since learned have little or nothing to do with the above ruling. I have removed them to avoid further confusing an already confusing situation. - Bob]
Plaintiff (Mateel C.C. Inc.) filed an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order and request for an order to show cause re: preliminary injunction.
Defendants (P.P. C.B. & T.D.) filed opposition.
In determining whether to issue a TRO a court must consider the likelihood plaintiff will prevail on the merits at trial, and balance interim harm to each party if the injunction is or is not granted. Interim harm considers the adequacy or inadequacy of other remedies, the extent of irreparable injury, and the need to preserve the status quo. (CCP §526(a); Abrams v. St. John’s Hosp. & Health Center (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 628). The plaintiff has the burden of proof on each issue. (Savage v. Trammell Crow Co. (1990) 223 Cal.App.1562).
The court will deny the application for a TRO finding that the plaintiff has not at this juncture established great or irreparable injury will result, nor that pecuniary compensation would not afford adequate relief. (CCP §526(a) (2) and (4)).
The application for a TRO is denied. An OSC will issue re: preliminary injunction.
Dated March 5, 2007
W. Bruce Watson, Judge of the Superior Court.
Note: an attachment shows that the ruling was executed March 6, 2007 with copies set to lawyers for all parties.
What does it all mean? [Note: an earlier version of this post also included two quotes from legal briefs that I've since learned have little or nothing to do with the above ruling. I have removed them to avoid further confusing an already confusing situation. - Bob]
Comments:
<< Home
When judges issue orders, they routinely follow a sentence with the legal authority for the proposition just stated. Most of the verbiage in the sentence that precedes the citation to Abrams v. St. John’s Hosp. & Health Center is contained in the Code Judge Watson cited. I suspect he threw in Abrams because it talks about “the need to preserve the status quo”. That language is not in CCP 526, but courts look at that as one of the factors in determining the "interim harm" that a plaintiff may suffer if the injuction is not granted.
Savage is no doubt being cited for the proposition that “Plaintiff bears the burden of Proof”.
Hope that is of assistance, and sorry to see your lovely blog all sullied with legalese
Savage is no doubt being cited for the proposition that “Plaintiff bears the burden of Proof”.
Hope that is of assistance, and sorry to see your lovely blog all sullied with legalese
# posted by 
: 1:24 PM
: 1:24 PM
It's just cited for the general formula in the preceding sentence:
Interim harm considers the adequacy or inadequacy of other remedies, the extent of irreparable injury, and the need to preserve the status quo.
The law favors monetary damages relief over specific performance (where the court actually orders a party to do something to comply with a contract), for many reasons including the 13th Amendment. In order to get specific performance (ie. an injunction) you have to show by substantial evidence that a monetary award will be inadequate to restore the plaintiff should he/she/it ultimately prevail. Judge Watson was apparently unconvinced of the necessity of injunctive relief and didn't even have to consider whether plaintiff had a substantial probability of prevailing on the merits (the second prong for injunctive relief). That's why the ruling came so quickly.
The facts of the cases cited aren't essential, only the general rule. These case cites have probably become boiler plate, and were probably cited in the opposing papers.
Post a Comment
Interim harm considers the adequacy or inadequacy of other remedies, the extent of irreparable injury, and the need to preserve the status quo.
The law favors monetary damages relief over specific performance (where the court actually orders a party to do something to comply with a contract), for many reasons including the 13th Amendment. In order to get specific performance (ie. an injunction) you have to show by substantial evidence that a monetary award will be inadequate to restore the plaintiff should he/she/it ultimately prevail. Judge Watson was apparently unconvinced of the necessity of injunctive relief and didn't even have to consider whether plaintiff had a substantial probability of prevailing on the merits (the second prong for injunctive relief). That's why the ruling came so quickly.
The facts of the cases cited aren't essential, only the general rule. These case cites have probably become boiler plate, and were probably cited in the opposing papers.
<< Home
