Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 24STCV05010, Date: 2024-03-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV05010    Hearing Date: March 25, 2024    Dept: 82

OSC RE: PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Date:               3/25/24 (9:30 PM)

Case:                           Regina Fair v. Glenis Cardona (24STCV05010)

TENTATIVE RULING:

On 3/5/24, this Court GRANTED IN PART plaintiff’s ex parte application for a temporary restraining order and order to show cause re: preliminary injunction and issued a written order that same date.  Specifically, the Order to Show Cause ordered defendant to appear on this date and show cause:

“why you, your agents, employees, and those acting on your behalf shall not be prohibited from transferring, or directing or causing to be transferred, any portion of the proceeds from the sale of 1345 W. 37^th Drive Los Angeles, CA 9007, other than to transfer funds to IPX 1031, the facilitator designated for the 1031 exchange for Regina Fair, Successor Trustee of The Frank R. Fair Jr. Living Trust U/A dated May 21, 2022, during the pendency of the above entitled action.”

(3/5/24 Order at 2.)

The Court also ordered a briefing scheduling concerning the above Order to Show Cause and entered a temporary restraining order to enjoin the same conduct at issue in the Order to Show Cause pending today’s hearing.  (3/5/24 Order at 2.)

The Court’s Order to Show Cause and temporary restraining order were issued to preserve the status quo pending adjudication of plaintiff’s claims on the merits.  Despite plaintiff’s request for more in the ex parte application, the Court declined to issue orders providing relief beyond that, including plaintiff’s request that the Court require defendant to transfer certain funds or directing a non-party (Bank of America) to act.

Notwithstanding the apparent clarity of the Court’s Order to Show Cause, plaintiff filed a “Motion for Preliminary Injunction” on 3/8/24.  It is not directed to the Court’s Order to Show Cause, but instead requests “a Preliminary Injunction to Order Defendant to Immediately Transfer Plaintiff’s $724,182.90 to IPX 1031, the Plaintiff’s Exchange facilitator.” (3/8/24 Mtn. at 1.) Because it is entirely non-responsive to the Court’s Order to Show, the Court disregards it for the purposes of today’s hearing. 

Insofar as plaintiff’s “response” to the Order to Show cause is meant to be a separate motion seeking relief not contemplated by the Court’s Order to Show Cause, it fails on numerous and independent grounds.  Plaintiff did not reserve a hearing for any such motion, on this date or any other.  Per the Local Rules, a motion for preliminary injunction shall be made in the department to where the case is assigned, which is Department 28 and not this Department. (LASC Rule 2.8(b).)  Even if plaintiff were permitted to bring such a motion to be heard today in Department 82, plaintiff failed to timely file and serve any such motion.  (See CCP 1005 [requiring filing and service at least 16 court days before the hearing].)  Further still, plaintiff seeks precisely the same relief that this Court denied in connection with plaintiff’s ex parte application on 3/5/24.  As such, this is a motion for reconsideration that fails to demonstrate any “new or different facts, circumstances, or law,” which is fatal.  (CCP 1008(a).)  Indeed, such shortcomings are jurisdictional.  (CCP 1008(e).)

As for the issues actually before this Court for hearing today, the Court shall issue a preliminary injunction as set forth in the Court’s 3/5/24 Order to Show Cause, which is not opposed.  (See Opp. at 1 [“Defendant responds that there is no objection to the issuance as a Preliminary Injunction the current Order herein, in the format issued ex parte on March 5. 2024 by this Court . . .’].)  Plaintiff shall submit a Proposed Order in accordance herewith and provide Notice.  The Temporary Restraining Order, used 3/5/24, dissolves at the conclusion of today’s hearing per its terms.