Judge: H. Jay Ford, III, Case: 19SMCV00390, Date: 2023-06-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19SMCV00390    Hearing Date: June 29, 2023    Dept: O

Case Name:  City of Santa Monica v. Bills, et al.

SUBJECT:                 MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION  

MOVING PARTY:   Plaintiff City of Santa Monica

RESP. PARTY:         Defendant WIB Holdings LLC 

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff City of Santa Monica’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction based on the 2^nd cause of action for violation of SMMC §4.28.030 is DENIED, without prejudice to the entry of an appropriate judgment for a permanent injunction in accordance with the Court’s order granting summary adjudication of the City’s second cause of action for violation of SMMC §4.28.030.

Preliminary injunctions are provisional remedies intended to maintain the status quo pending trial on the merits of the claim.  See Continental Baking Co. v. Katz (1968) 68 Cal.2d 512, 528.  “As its name suggests, a preliminary injunction is an order that is sought by a plaintiff prior to a full adjudication of the merits of its claim.  The purpose of such an order is to preserve the status quo until a final determination following a trial.”  Costa Mesa City Employees' Assn. v. City of Costa Mesa (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 298, 305. 

“A permanent injunction is an equitable remedy for certain torts or wrongful acts of a defendant where the remedy of damages is inadequate. It is awarded where the plaintiff has prevailed on the merits on a cause of action and equitable relief is appropriate.”  6 Witkin, Cal. Proc. (6^th ed. 2022), Prov Rem §280.  “A permanent injunction is very different from a preliminary injunction. While a preliminary injunction is issued to maintain the status quo, a permanent injunction is a final judgment on the merits.”  Id. 

Plaintiff already obtained an order adjudicating the 2^nd cause of action for violation of SMMC §4.28.030 on 2-9-23.  A final order granting summary adjudication on the 2^nd cause of action was entered on 4-11-23.  Any injunction would no longer be preliminary or provisional, and there would therefore be no need to show the “likelihood of prevailing” under the two-prong test applied to a request for injunctive relief.  Plaintiff has already prevailed on summary adjudication on the merits.  There are no future proceedings on Plaintiff’s 2^nd cause of action pending the entry of a judgment.