Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 22SMCV01556, Date: 2023-05-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV01556    Hearing Date: May 16, 2023    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

De Julio et al. v. Tana, Case No. 22SMCV01556

Hearing Date January 31, 2023 continued to May 16, 2023.

Cross-Complainant Tana’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (UNOPPOSED)

De Julio plaintiff tenants allege defendant/cross-complainant landlord Tana failed to remedy mold and moisture intrusion, breaching the warranties of habitability and quiet enjoyment. They also allege Tana wrongfully terminated the tenancy and removed their possessions from the property. Landlord Tana moves for a preliminary injunction, asking the court to order the De Julios to remove all personal possessions, so she can make repairs and rent the property.

A preliminary injunction will issue if 1) moving party is likely to suffer greater injury from a denial than the non-moving party is likely to suffer from its grant, and 2) a reasonable probability that the moving party will prevail on the merits. IT Corp. v. County of Imperial (1983) 35 Cal.3d 63, 69-70. When a strong showing is made on one of these two elements, the showing as to the other element does not need to be as strong. Right Site Coalition v. Los Angeles Unified School District (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 336, 339. A preliminary injunction will only be issued if money damages would be an inadequate remedy. Tahoe Keys Prop. Owners’ Assoc. v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (1994) 23 CA4th 1459, 1471.

A preliminary injunction is generally designed to preserve the status quo, but a preliminary injunction that to some extent alters the status quo can be issued in “extreme cases where the right thereto is clearly established.”  Integrated Dynamic Solutions, Inc. v. Vitavet Labs, Inc. (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 1178, 1184.

Tana’s declaration shows likely injury if the injunction is not issued, as she is unable to collect rent while the property remains unrepaired and uninhabited. Her insurance policy has been cancelled because of the failure to repair, which cannot be done while the De Julios’ possessions remain. Tana decl. ¶6-11. Since the motion is unopposed, there is no basis for the court to determine the De Julios are likely to suffer a greater harm than Tana if the motion is granted. Additionally, Tana has shown a likelihood of prevailing on the merits, as the lease allows her to enter the property and conduct repairs. Tana decl. ¶3, exhibit 1. The evidence shows these repairs cannot be completed until the De Julios’ possessions are removed.

Ordinarily, this showing would be sufficient. Tana, however, requests an injunction that alters the status quo. Currently, the De Julio’s possessions are in the property, and the requested injunction requires their removal. Under Integrated Dynamic Solutions, Tana must prove this is an “extreme case” wherein her right to an injunction is “clearly established.” She fails to meet that high bar. The motion does not prove or even argue that monetary damages would be inadequate. Since the right to an injunction is not “clearly established,” and an injunction would alter the status quo, the motion fails. DENIED.