Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 24CHCV01319, Date: 2024-07-26 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24CHCV01319 Hearing Date: July 26, 2024 Dept: F43
Dept.
F43
Date:
7-26-24
Case
#24CHCV01319, Victor Shaw, et al. vs. George Maida, et al.
Trial
Date: N/A
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
MOVING
PARTY: Plaintiffs Victor Shaw and Elsa Shaw
RESPONDING
PARTY: Defendants George Maida and Samia Maida
RELIEF
REQUESTED
Motion
for Preliminary Injunction
RULING: A ruling will be
issued after the hearing.
SUMMARY
OF ACTION
Plaintiffs
Victor Shaw and Elsa Shaw (Plaintiffs) are the owners of residential real
property located at 11860 Darby Avenue, Porter Ranch, California (Shaw
Property). The Shaw Property adjoins Defendants George Maida and Samia Maida’s
(Defendants) residential real property located at 11864 Darby Avenue, Porter
Ranch, California (Maida Property). Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have been
engaging in willful trespass by allowing toxic materials, caustic cleaning
solutions, and other debris to be spilled out and thrown from Defendants’
property onto Plaintiffs’ property.
Plaintiffs
represent that Defendants’ acts have caused Plaintiffs to suffer property
damage consisting of destroyed grass, trees, and other vegetation, as well as
severe emotional distress. Plaintiffs represent that they have repeatedly
requested that Defendants cease disposing of the chemicals onto Plaintiffs’
property, but Defendants have only intensified their behavior.
Plaintiffs
filed this action on April 12, 2024. Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges causes of
action for willful trespass, negligent trespass, private nuisance, and negligent
infliction of emotional distress. On May 29, 2024, Plaintiffs filed this motion
for preliminary injunction in order to enjoin and restrain Defendants from
trespassing on the Shaw Property and causing toxic materials, cleaning
solutions, and other debris to trespass onto the Shaw Property.
Plaintiffs
argue in their motion that if Defendants are not enjoined from engaging in
their repeated and ongoing conduct, then those acts will produce continuous
waste, irreparable injury, further distress, and greater damages than have been
suffered to date.
Defendants
argue in their opposition that Plaintiffs have failed to make the threshold
showing of irreparable harm required for the issuance of a preliminary
injunction. Defendants also argue that Plaintiffs have failed to make the
requisite showing of success on the merits. Finally, Defendants argue that if
the preliminary injunction is granted, the Court must require an undertaking or
allow a cash deposit in lieu of the undertaking.
Plaintiffs
argue in their reply that all they are asking for is an order from the Court
preventing Defendants from engaging in trespass or allowing toxic materials to
trespass on Plaintiffs’ property. Plaintiffs also argue that the evidence shown
at the hearing will show a likelihood that Plaintiffs will prevail on the
merits at trial. Next, Plaintiffs argue that mental suffering associated with
the trespass to real property qualifies as irreparable harm. Plaintiffs also
argue that there will be no prejudice to Defendants if the Court grants this
motion.
Defendants’
Evidentiary Objections:
Sustained: 5, 6
(only for the references to what Defendants said during the confrontation, the
rest is overruled); 7 (only for the references to what Defendant Samia said,
the rest is overruled), 13, 14, 18, 19
Overruled: 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11,
12, 15, 16, 17
ANALYSIS
In
ruling on a motion for preliminary injunction, the court first considers both
the likelihood of prevailing on the merits and irreparable harm. (Millennium Rock Mortg., Inc. v. T.D. Service
Co. (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 804, 812.) “An evaluation of the relative harm
to the parties upon the granting or denial of a preliminary injunction requires
consideration of: ‘(1) the inadequacy of any other remedy; (2) the degree of
irreparable injury the denial of the injunction will cause; (3) the necessity
to preserve the status quo; [and] (4) the degree of adverse effect on the
public interest or interests of third parties the granting of the injunction
will cause.’” (Vo v. City of Garden Grove
(2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 425, 435.) “‘[T]he more likely it is that plaintiffs
will ultimately prevail, the less severe must be the harm that they allege will
occur if the injunction does not issue .... [I]t is the mix of these factors
that guides the trial court in its exercise of discretion.’” (Right Site Coalition v. Los Angeles Unified
School Dist. (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 336, 342.) “The ultimate questions on a
motion for a preliminary injunction are (1) whether the plaintiff is ‘likely to
suffer greater injury from a denial of the injunction than the defendants are
likely to suffer from its grant,’ and (2) whether there is ‘a reasonable
probability that the plaintiffs will prevail on the merits’” (Huong Que, Inc. v. Luu (2007) 150
Cal.App.4th 400, 408. Procedurally, an application for a preliminary
injunction, must be based upon sufficient evidence. (CCP § 527(a); Bank of America v. Williams (1948) 89 Cal.App.2d 21, 29.)
Irreparable Harm
Irreparable injury is one of the requirements that a
plaintiff must show for a preliminary injunction. (CCP § 526(a); see Trader
Joe’s v. Progressive Campaigns (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 425, 429 [a plaintiff
must show both, “(1) a reasonable probability it will prevail on the merits and
(2) that the harm to the plaintiff resulting from a refusal to grant the
preliminary injunction outweighs the harm to the defendant from imposing the
injunction.”].)
If Defendants continue to trespass on Plaintiffs’ property
in the manner in which Plaintiffs have alleged, then there is a chance that
irreparable injury will occur. The caustic chemicals and toxic materials which
Plaintiffs have alleged that Defendants are dumping on their property could irreparably
harm Plaintiffs, their dogs, or their property.
Plaintiffs have established that irreparable harm could
occur if Defendants continue to trespass on Plaintiffs’ property. The next part
of the analysis is whether Plaintiffs have a probability of success on the
merits.
Probability of Success on the Merits
A preliminary injunction should only be granted where
there is a reasonable probability that a plaintiff will prevail on the merits
at trial. (Prigmore v. City of Redding (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1322, 1333.)
Even when a party could sustain irreparable harm, there must be a probability
of success on the merits. (See Jessen v. Keystone Savings and Loan
Association (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 454, 459 [delaying the foreclosure sale
with a preliminary injunction would only delay the inevitable].)
Defendants argue in their opposition that Plaintiffs
are unlikely to succeed on the merits because Plaintiffs have only alleged
specific acts attributed to Defendant Samia and no specific acts are attributed
to Defendant George. While this is true, that does not mean that Plaintiffs
could not succeed on the merits against Defendant Samia.
Defendants also argue that Plaintiffs have failed to provide
any documentary evidence of Mrs. Maida throwing garbage and leaves onto
Plaintiffs’ property, and that Plaintiffs’ discovery responses do not show that
Plaintiffs have suffered great mental, physical emotional, and nervous pain and
suffering. Defendants also argue that Plaintiffs have not indicated that they
have sought any medical treatment.
Plaintiffs argue in their reply that they have evidence
consisting of videos and photos that they intend to show at the hearing on this
motion. Plaintiffs’ reply also indicates that they have evidence of more recent
trespasses by Defendants.
Once the Court has seen the alleged evidence, the
Court will make its determination on whether Plaintiffs have a probability of
success on the merits.
Balance of Equities
In weighing the hardships to the
parties when deciding whether to grant or deny a preliminary injunction, a
trial court’s discretion should be exercised in favor of the party most likely
to be injured. (Andrews v. San Bernardino (1959) 175 Cal.App.2d 459,
463.)
Plaintiff will be injured if the
preliminary injunction were to be denied. If Defendants continue to trespass on
Plaintiffs’ property in the ways in which Plaintiffs have alleged, Plaintiffs
could be harmed. There is no injury to Defendants if the preliminary injunction
is granted. They would simply be enjoined from an activity that is already
illegal. Therefore, the balance of equities weighs in favor of Plaintiffs.
BOND
Defendants also argue that in the
event the Court grants the motion, Plaintiffs should post a bond to cover any
damages that may be caused to Defendants. They claim that they could lose quiet
enjoyment of their property and a diminished property value, but it is
Plaintiffs’ property that is allegedly being trespassed upon, not Defendants’. It
is unclear how Defendants could possibly be damaged by the granting of this
motion. No bond will be required.
CONCLUSION
The Court will issue its ruling on
this motion for preliminary injunction once it has seen the evidence that
Plaintiffs intend to present at the hearing.
Moving party to give notice.