Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 23STCV23440, Date: 2023-10-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV23440    Hearing Date: October 30, 2023    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On September 27, 2023, Plaintiffs 26 Global Development, Inc.; Shaul Arbib; 600 Clinton Pl., LLC; and Yanit Z. Ibrahimian filed this action against Defendants The Evergreen Advantage, LLC; FCI Lender Services, Inc.; California TD Specialists; Qualfax, Inc.; RTI Properties, Inc.; and Peak Foreclosure Services, Inc. The complaint asserts causes of action for (1) accounting, (2) injunctive relief, and (3) breach of contract.

            The action concerns a property located in Beverly Hills. Although Plaintiffs admittedly defaulted on a loan secured by the property, the complaint alleges that Defendants failed to properly account for payments made and initiated foreclosure proceedings without discussing alternatives as required by law. Defendants also allegedly raised improper fees and charges toward the loan principal.

            On October 3, 2023, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the foreclosure proceedings.

LEGAL STANDARD

The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo pending final resolution upon a trial. (See¿Scaringe¿v.¿J.C.C. Enterprises, Inc.¿(1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1536.) A trial court deciding whether to issue an injunction weighs two interrelated factors—the likelihood the moving party will prevail on the merits at trial and the relative balance of interim harms that are likely to result from the granting or denial of preliminary injunctive relief. (White v. Davis (2003) 30 Cal.4th 528, 554; Cohen v. Board of Supervisors (1985) 40 Cal.3d 277, 286.) “Generally, the ruling on an application for a preliminary injunction rests in the sound discretion of the trial court.” (Cohen, supra, 40 Cal.3d at p. 286.)

DISCUSSION

            First, the Court notes that there is no proof of service indicating service of the complaint to any defendant. The instant motion has also been improperly served via mail because the defendants have not appeared in the case.

            Additionally, “[a] corporation cannot represent itself in court, either in propria persona or through an officer or agent who is not an attorney.” (Merco Constr. Engineers, Inc. v. Municipal Court (1978) 21 Cal.3d 724, 729.) Therefore, the entity Plaintiffs, the alleged owners of the subject property, have no authority to file this motion. The entities cannot be represented by non-lawyer representatives such as a CEO or agent. Therefore, the inclusion of Arbib and Ibrahimian as plaintiffs does not redress the issue.

Lastly, the motion does not include any evidence demonstrating a likelihood of success. (See Costa Mesa City Employees Assn. v. City of Costa Mesa (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 298, 309.)

In sum, the motion fails on both procedural and substantive grounds. Any one of the reasons discussed above would warrant denial of the motion.

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction is DENIED.