Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 24SMCV00772, Date: 2024-02-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV00772    Hearing Date: February 23, 2024    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

12518 Sunset Group LLC et al. v. Lionscove Fund 1, LLC, Case No. 24SMCV00772

Hearing Date February 23, 2024

Plaintiff 12518 Sunset’s Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order

Plaintiff Sunset Group obtained a mortgage loan from defendant Lionscove for $2,737,050, secured by property owned by plaintiff Daron Campbell. Sunset states the loan included $722,050 in construction funds, which were to be made available as construction expenses were incurred. Sunset was required to incur expenses out-of-pocket, which would then be reimbursed. Sunset states it could obtain reimbursement by requesting a draw, which would result in Lionscove sending an inspector to the property to determine how much of the construction fund should be disbursed.

Sunset argues Lionscove acted in bad faith, stalling reimbursements, delaying inspections, and disbursing smaller payments than warranted, intending to stall the project and foreclose on the property. Sunset states Lionscove is foreclosing on the property but argues if it is able to obtain construction funds still being withheld by Lionscove, the project can be completed, the property sold, and the loan paid off in full.

Sunset moves for a TRO preventing the foreclosure, currently scheduled for February 26, 2024.

Ex parte relief will only be granted upon a “factual showing in a declaration containing competent testimony of irreparable harm, immediate danger, or any other statutory basis for grating relief ex parte,” and only “in the plainest and most certain of cases.” Newsom v. Superior Court (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 1093, 1097. A temporary restraining order may be issued ex parte to preserve the status quo pending a full evidentiary hearing on a motion for preliminary injunction. See Landmark Holding Group, Inc. v. Superior Court (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d. 525, 527.

Sunset seeks an ex parte order preserving the status quo. Sale of the property would result in irreparable harm, since as a matter of law real property is unique and its loss constitutes irreparable injury. E.g., Wheat v. Thomas (1930) 209 Cal. 306. Failure to issue a TRO would essentially moot the claims alleged in Sunset’s complaint.

Lionscove, by contrast, is unlikely to suffer comparable harm if the foreclosure sale is delayed pending a hearing on a motion for a preliminary injunction. GRANTED, pending hearing on a motion for preliminary injunction. The ex parte application will be treated as the moving papers.