Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 24STCV20007, Date: 2024-12-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV20007    Hearing Date: December 13, 2024    Dept: 52

Greenland LA Metropolis Development v. Northland Thea, LLC, et al

24STCV20007

Tentative Order

Defendants/cross-complainants Northland THEA LLC, Northland THEA Portfolio LLC, Northland THEA Portfolio II LLC, Northland THEA Portfolio III LLC, and Northland THEA IV LLC apply ex parte for a temporary restraining order prohibiting other parties from interfering with or denying Northland’s access to portions of the MET-2 building located at 877 Francisco Street, Los Angeles, CA 90017.

Defendants do not show sufficient grounds for a temporary restraining order granted on an ex parte basis.  A court may only grant a temporary restraining order 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 Civ. Proc., § 527, subd. (c)(1).)  Defendants fail to satisfy this requirement. 

Defendants assert they need this temporary restraining order to repair their building’s seismic joints and address water intrusion.  The gravamen of the alleged harm is potential property damage and financial loss due to lost income.  There is insufficient evidence that any potential damage could not be repaired.  Defendants have an adequate remedy at law for any alleged financial loss they incur from now until the hearing on a motion for preliminary injunction.  Defendants do not meet their burden of showing great or irreparable injury will result before the matter can be heard on a noticed motion.

Moreover, cross-defendant and cross-complainant Metropolis Master Association makes substantial arguments on the merits in its opposition to this application.  The issues are complex.  A regularly scheduled motion will give interested parties a full and fair opportunity to gather evidence and brief the issues.  It will also give the court more time to consider and analyze the legal and fact issues presented.

Defendants have not shown an emergency that justifies issuing a TRO before a hearing on a motion for preliminary injunction.  Their application asserts the dispute over repairing the seismic joints has persisted “[f]or at least the past 24 months.”  (Memo, p. 4.)  Defendants do not explain why the dispute is suddenly an emergency. 

The application is denied.  Defendants may file a noticed motion for a preliminary injunction.