Judge: John C. Gastelum, Case: 22-01249805, Date: 2022-07-28 Tentative Ruling

(1) Motion for Preliminary Injunction (2) OSC re Preliminary Injunction

Tentative Ruling:  (1) Plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction is DENIED. 

As an initial matter, as phrased the injunction would be difficult to enforce because contempt may not lie (words such as “unreasonably denying” plaintiff “access”).  Overbroad, vague or generally phrased injunctions are avoided because contempt will not lie. (Evans v. Evans (2008) 162 CA4th 1157, 1169).

In reviewing the requested relief, it appears Plaintiffs are seeking a mandatory injunction, which does not appear warranted here.  First, Plaintiff has not adequately stated irreparable harm.  Plaintiff is still permitted to build on its own property, regardless of whether or not an easement currently exists.  Further, it is unclear whether Defendants actually object to permitting access for ingress and egress to Plaintiff’s property, or to Plaintiff’s desire to use the Easement for the reasons proposed by Plaintiff. 

Second, Plaintiff has not shown that pecuniary compensation would not afford adequate relief.  Indeed, the Vu declaration outlines the losses that have been incurred since construction was stopped in March 2021 including potential rent of approximately $8,500 per month, rising costs of construction labor and materials has increased 60% from the original cost of $540,000 to $862,500, with the expectation that those costs will continue to rise. 

Next, Plaintiff has failed to establish a probability of prevailing on the merits. Plaintiff’s Complaint contains five causes of action, all of which have separate elements, and none of which are discussed.  All of the causes of action hinge on the interpretation of the Easement.  Plaintiff argues its use of the Easement is a natural and reasonably contemplated need that “comports with protecting the value and desirability”, which is the true purpose of the Easement and that the Easement must be read as a whole.  However, no real in-depth argument has been presented other than these conclusory statements and Plaintiff fails to address how erecting scaffolding, erecting framing, storing equipment and material and other related tasks on Defendants’ property for 12 months constitutes “ingress and egress.” 

Finally, in terms of harm, the balancing weighs in favor of Defendants and their concerns for the health and safety of themselves, as well as those of their minor children.

For these reasons, the preliminary injunction is denied.

Moving Party to give notice.

(2) Defendants’ motion for preliminary injunction is DENIED.

Defendants’ objection to the late filed Opposition is WAIVED based on their timely Reply on the merits. 

Defendants’ objections to the Declaration of Miguel Soltero are OVERRULED.

Defendants specifically request eight items subject to injunctive relief. 

First, as phrased the last two items requested in the injunction would be difficult to enforce because contempt may not lie (“No harm or injury to Defendants or their children.” Or “No violation of Defendants’ privacy rights relating to Lot 3”).  Overbroad, vague or generally phrased injunctions are avoided because contempt will not lie. (Evans v. Evans (2008) 162 CA4th 1157, 1169).

Next, Defendants have not met their burden of establishing a probability of prevailing on the merits.  Defendants’ reading of the Easement is too narrow because once Plaintiff begins building a structure on Lot 5 the Easement, Plaintiff would be entitled to utilize it.  As Defendants have said, there is nothing that prevents Plaintiff from building on its own property.  The Easement contains no limiting language regarding its use solely for the purpose of maintaining the original structure and once that structure is gone, the Easement disappears, as Defendants propose.  Moreover, Defendants attempt to distinguish “construction” from “maintenance” is unavailing as Defendants have failed to establish that the terms are mutually exclusive.   Accordingly, Defendants have not met their burden to establish a probability of prevailing on the merits.

For these reasons, the preliminary injunction is denied.

Moving Party to give notice.