Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 24NWCV03010, Date: 2024-09-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24NWCV03010    Hearing Date: September 10, 2024    Dept: C

Ortega, et al. vs. Uptown Property Management Inc., Case No. 24NWCV03010

This is a housing discrimination case. Plaintiffs move ex parte to prevent Defendants from taking further action on Plaintiff’s rental application and enjoin the Defendants from making “pointless” inquiries to Plaintiff Steven C. Ortega’s place of employment; from renting or leasing the Subject Property to a third party or further encumbering it; from engaging in discriminatory practices such as refusing to consider lawful sources of income, ignoring program case manager’s voicemails and phone calls, and failing to sum up the income of all household members.

“[T]rial courts should evaluate two interrelated factors when deciding whether to issue [a restraining order]. The first is the likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits at trial.¿The second is the interim harm that the plaintiff is likely to sustain if the [restraining order] were denied as compared to the harm that the defendant is likely to suffer if the [order] were issued."¿(Church of Christ in Hollywood v. Super. Ct. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1244, 1251.)¿“The trial court’s determination must be guided by a 'mix' of the potential-merit and interim-harm factors; the greater the plaintiff’s showing on one, the less must be shown on the other to support [a restraining order] . . ..¿ 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.’¿ . . .¿ A trial court may not grant a [restraining order], regardless of the balance of interim harm, unless there is some possibility that the plaintiff would ultimately prevail on the merits of the claim.”¿(Id. at pp. 1251-1252.)¿ 

A party may seek ex parte relief upon an affirmative factual showing "irreparable harm, immediate danger, or any other statutory basis for granting relief ex parte." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1202(c).)

Plaintiffs argue that the defendants have consistently withheld rental properties from those receiving Government Subsidy Rental Assistance Payments by selectively considering sources of income. Plaintiffs argue they will suffer irreparable harm because the property is still being listed for rent and, without court intervention, it will be rented to someone else.  Also, they are forced to rent a property of similar size that is $1000 more expensive than the properties they tried to rent from Defendants. 

Based on this record, the Court determines that ex parte relief is not warranted.  The ex parte application is DENIED.  Plaintiffs are not foreclosed from filing and serving a noticed motion for the relief sought.

Moving party to give notice.