Judge Joel L. Lofton, Case 22AHCV00723 2023-03-02 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 22AHCV00723, Date: 2023-03-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22AHCV00723 Hearing Date: March 2, 2023 Dept: X

Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE: March 2, 2023 TRIAL DATE: No date set.

CASE: MIMI LIN, an individual, WEI ZHANG, an individual; CITEAUSA, a California corporation; CITEA DRINKS, an California corporation; CITEA RH, a California corporation; HIITORY CAFÉ LLC, a California limited liability company, and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive.

CASE NO.: 22AHCV00723

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Mimi Lin

RESPONDING PARTY: No response filed.

SERVICE: Filed January 4, 2023

RELIEF REQUESTED

Plaintiff moves for a preliminary injunction prohibiting Defendants from selling their assets.

BACKGROUND

This case arises out of Plaintiff Mimi Lin’s (“Plaintiff”) claims that she was improperly excluded from the business operations of Defendant CiTeaUSA (“CiTeaUSA”) by Defendant Wei Zhang (“Zhang”). Plaintiff alleges CiTeaUSA was formed and registered on or about May 20, 2019. Plaintiff alleges Zhang represented that Plaintiff would be a 50% shareholder of CiTeaUSA. Plaintiff alleges she contributed capital totaling $68,700. Plaintiff alleges she was initially the secretary of CiTeaUSA and a signatory to CiTeaUSA’s checking account. Plaintiff alleges that Zhang unilaterally removed Plaintiff as a signatory to CiTeaUSA’s checking account and removed Plaintiff as secretary. Plaintiff alleges that Zhang subsequently incorporated additional businesses using CiTeaUSA’s capital.

Plaintiff filed this complaint on September 22, 2022, alleging nine causes of action for (1) accounting, (2) declaratory relief, (3) accounting and dissolution, (4) accounting and dissolution, (5) accounting and dissolution, (6) fraud, (7) breach of fiduciary duty, (8) conversion, and (9) violation of Corporations Code section 1150.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Plaintiff’s requests for judicial notice for exhibits 1 through 9 are granted pursuant to Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (c).

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED.

LEGAL STANDARD

Code of Civil Procedure section 526, subdivision (a), provides:

An injunction may be granted in the following cases: [¶] (1) When it appears by the complaint that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief demanded, and the relief, or any part thereof, consists in restraining the commission or continuance of the act complained of, either for a limited period or perpetually. [¶] (2) When it appears by the complaint or affidavits that the commission or continuance of some act during the litigation would produce waste, or great or irreparable injury, to a party to the action. [¶] (3) When it appears, during the litigation, that a party to the action is doing, or threatens, or is about to do, or is procuring or suffering to be done, some act in violation of the rights of another party to the action respecting the subject of the action, and tending to render the judgment ineffectual. [¶] (4) When pecuniary compensation would not afford adequate relief. [¶] (5) Where it would be extremely difficult to ascertain the amount of compensation which would afford adequate relief. [¶] (6) Where the restraint is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of judicial proceedings. [¶] (7) Where the obligation arises from a trust.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff moves for a preliminary injunction prohibiting Defendants from selling corporate assets. Plaintiff argues that allowing Defendants to sell would prevent her from recovering her initial capital investment in CiTeaUSA.

“The general purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo pending a determination on the merits of the action.” (SB Liberty, LLC v. Isla Verde Assn., Inc. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 272, 280 “A trial court must weigh two interrelated factors when deciding whether to grant a plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction: (1) the likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits at trial, and (2) the relative interim harm to the parties from the issuance or nonissuance of the injunction, that is, the interim harm the plaintiff is likely to sustain if the injunction is denied as compared to the harm the defendant is likely to suffer if the preliminary injunction is issued.” (Ibid.) “ ‘Of course, “[t]he scope of available preliminary relief is necessarily limited by the scope of the relief likely to be obtained at trial on the merits.” ’ ” (O’Connel v. Superior Court (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1452, 1463.)

Plaintiff argues that she has demonstrated a likelihood of success because she states she contributed $68,700 worth of capital to CiTeaUSA. (Lin Decl. ¶ 2.) However, Plaintiff does not explain how her statements that she contributed financially to CiTeaUSA provide that she is likely to success on any of her claims. Plaintiff does not provide any elements to any of her causes of action or demonstrate that she has shown she is able to succeed on those elements.

Further and more importantly, Plaintiff argues that the irreparable harm she will face is the loss of her initial contribution of $68,700. This is not irreparable harm. Plaintiff has not established she would be unable to recover the money from Defendants through other means or that she is facing anything besides monetary damages.

Plaintiff has failed to establish either factor required for the issuance of a preliminary injunction.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED.

Moving Party to give notice

Dated: March 2, 2023 ___________________________________

Joel L. Lofton

Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court indicating their

intention to submit. Parties intending to appear are strongly encouraged to appear remotely. alhdeptx@lacourt.org