Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District 

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

  This case arises from a dispute between neighbors.  Plaintiff Anita Gorwara is the owner of real property located at 15224 Earlham Street, Pacific Palisades, California (the “Property”).  In 2021, Plaintiff planted a Ficus hedge row which she claims was entirely on her Property near the property line of the adjacent property, commonly known as 15230 Earlham Street (the “Adjacent Property”).  At the time she planted the hedge, the Adjacent Property was a vacant house, having been foreclosed upon by a financial institution.     

In 2021, Defendants Dr. Albert Chang and Kyong Ae Kim bought the Adjacent Property.  The Ficus hedge was already in existence at the time of Defendants’ purchase.  Plaintiff claims Defendants attempted to poison the hedge in September 2021, and when that failed, Defendants instructed their gardener to enter the Property and to cut down Plaintiff’s Ficus hedge.  Defendants maintain that the Ficus hedge is on their property.  This lawsuit ensued.   

The operative complaint alleges seven claims for (1) malicious damage to property (Cal. Civ. Code § 733), (2) trespass, (3) negligence per se, (4) negligence, (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (6) injunctive relief and (7) quiet title.   

This hearing is on Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction, seeking to enjoin Defendants from entering the Property, altering Plaintiff’s landscaping, or damaging or destroying her Ficus hedge.   

LEGAL STANDARD 

In determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction, the trial court considers two factors: (1) the reasonable probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits at trial; and (2) a balancing of the “irreparable harm” that the plaintiff is likely to sustain if the injunction is denied compared to the harm that the defendant is likely to suffer if the court grants a preliminary injunction.  (C.C.P. §526(a); 14859 Moorpark Homeowner’s Assn. v. VRT Corp. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1396, 1402; Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro v. Schectman (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1279, 1283. 

The court must consider both factors.  The two factors are a sliding scale – the stronger the showing of probability of prevailing, the lesser showing is required for irreparable harm.  (Butt v. State 4 Cal.4th at 678;   The plaintiff must make some showing of each factor. (Jessen v. Keystone Savings & Loan Assn. (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 454, 459.)  A court may not issue a preliminary injunction if the plaintiff cannot possibly prevail on the merits even if a strong showing of irreparable harm has been made.  (Butt v. State (1992) 4 Cal.4th 668, 677-78.) 

The court’s ruling on a preliminary injunction is not an adjudication of the merits, is not a trial, and does not require a statement of decision.  (Cohen v. Board of Supervisors (1985) 40 Cal.3d 277, 286; People v. Landlords Professional Services, Inc. (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 68, 70-71.)  The Court is not required to state its reasons for granting or denying a preliminary injunction; a cursory statement is sufficient. (City of Los Altos v. Barnes (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1193, 1198.)¿ 

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 

Defendants request judicial notice of: (1) Exhibit A - Google Maps photograph of 15230 Earlham Street, Pacific Palisades, CA 90272 and 15224 Earlham Street, Pacific Palisades, CA 90272 dated April 2019; (2) Exhibit “B” – Google Maps photograph of 15230 Earlham Street, Pacific Palisades, CA 90272 and 15224 Earlham Street, Pacific Palisades, CA 90272 dated August 2022; (3) Exhibit “C” – Google Maps photograph of 15230 Earlham Street, Pacific Palisades, CA 90272 and 15224 Earlham Street, Pacific Palisades, CA 90272 dated December 2023; (4) Exhibit “D” – Google Earth Photograph of 15230 Earlham Street, Pacific Palisades, CA 90272 dated May 9, 2022, and (5) Exhibit “E” – Los Angeles County Office of the Assessor’s Parcel Map dated August 2, 2018.  The Court declines to consider the request as it is unnecessary to the Court’s ultimate ruling. 

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS 

The Court declines to consider both Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ evidentiary objections to their opposition parties’ declarations and exhibits as they are ultimately irrelevant to the Court’s ruling.   

DISCUSSION 

Plaintiff argues that it would suffer irreparable harm because absent an injunction, Defendants would do further damage to her Ficus hedge.  The Court disagrees. 

Injunctions of any kind (even prohibitory) will rarely be granted where a suit for damages provides a clear remedy.  (Thayer Plymouth Center, Inc. v. Chrysler Motors (1967) 255 Cal.App.2d 300, 307; Pacific Decision Sciences Corp v. Superior Court (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1100, 1110.)  

To obtain a preliminary injunction, Plaintiff must demonstrate that monetary damages would not be an adequate remedy for the alleged wrongdoing. (Code Civ. Proc. § 526(a)(4) (injunction may be granted when pecuniary compensation would not afford adequate relief); Estes v. Rowland (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 508, 535 (“There is no right to equitable relief or an equitable remedy when there is an adequate remedy at law.”); Brownfield v. Daniel Freeman Marina Hospital (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 405, 410 (there must be an injury that “cannot be compensated by an ordinary damage award”).)  

Here, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate monetary damages would not be an adequate remedy at law.  The Ficus hedge could be replanted if damaged by Defendants.  This is not a mature tree, but a hedge that was only planted recently, in 2021.  There is no claim that the hedge could not be easily replaced or has some non-monetary value.  Thus, money damages in the form of the cost of replacing the hedge are an adequate remedy.   

As the Court concludes there is no irreparable harm, it declines to consider whether Plaintiff can show she is likely to prevail on the merits of her claims.  

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction.   

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

DATED:  March 14, 2024 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court