Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 19SMCV00196, Date: 2022-09-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19SMCV00196    Hearing Date: September 22, 2022    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling
Habak et al. v. Busiashvili, Case No. 19SMCV00196
Hearing Date September 22, 2022
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Habak and Chiaverini (the Habaks) own property in Beverly Hills adjacent to defendants Busiashvili. Plaintiffs allege defendants constructed unpermitted improvements that encroach on their property and seek a preliminary injunction ordering the encroachments removed.

When determining whether to grant a preliminary injunction, a court weighs the likelihood applicant will prevail on the merits and the comparative harm the parties will suffer if an application does not issue. King v. Meese (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1217, 1227. In actions between landowners based on defendant constructing an unpermitted improvement, plaintiff is generally – but not always -- entitled to a mandatory injunction requiring defendant to remove the encroachment. Brown Derby Hollywood Corp. v. Hatton (1964) 61 Cal.2d 855, 858.

During deposition, Nana Busiashvili admitted the improvements encroach on the Habaks’ property, strong evidence the Habaks are likely to succeed on the merits. The Busiashvilis argue they are innocent encroachers regarding the pool and deck but concede the City issued an order to remove the wall and steps. The Habaks have proven a strong likelihood of success on the merits.

As to the second prong, the Habaks argue irreparable harm if the encroachments are not removed because their property interest will be damaged, and they may be criminally charged for unpermitted structures. They posit no other immediate harm. The court finds the Busiashvilis are likely to suffer greater harm if the motion is granted, given the cost of removing the alleged encroachments prior a final determination.

DENIED without prejudice. If actual potential harm surfaces, plaintiff may renew the motion.