Judge: Lindsey E. Martinez, Case: 2022-01253452, Date: 2022-08-08 Tentative Ruling

Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Plaintiffs Michelle Arlene Talley Ellsworth, Christian Horner Talley, Denise Suzanne Talley Rall, and Julie Ann Talley Allen move for an order modifying the Court’s May 9, 2022 preliminary injunction to be a mandatory injunction requiring Defendants to deposit $809,622.06 with the Court and a prohibitory injunction enjoining Defendants from transferring the Menifee Property or selling interests in the Menifee Property.

A mandatory injunction requires a person to take affirmative action that changes the parties' position.  (See, e.g., Warsaw v. Chicago Metallic Ceilings, Inc. (1984) 35 Cal.3d 564, 572 [injunction requiring removal of structure].)  Where the requested injunction is mandatory, it changes the status quo, and therefore is scrutinized “more closely” for abuse of discretion. (Oiye v. Fox (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1036, 1047–1048.)  “A preliminary mandatory injunction is rarely granted, and is subject to stricter review on appeal. The granting of a mandatory injunction pending trial is not permitted except in extreme cases where the right thereto is clearly established.” (Shoemaker v. County of Los Angeles (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 618, 625 [internal quotations omitted].

Rather than maintaining the status quo as is usual with an injunction, Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendants to deposit $809,622.06 with the Court, which sum is the sale proceeds of the Anaheim Hills property that is at issue in this lawsuit.  

A mandatory injunction is not warranted here.  First, insofar as the Court’s prior orders on Plaintiffs’ requests for injunctive relief found that Plaintiffs had sufficiently shown a likelihood of prevailing on the merits, those findings were based in part on the fact that Defendants did not submit any competing admissible evidence.  Now, however, Defendants have submitted evidence contradicting Plaintiffs’ claims.  Specifically, in his declaration, Defendant Jay Erb reflects at length on the relationship between him and his late wife, Suzanne.  Irma Delgadillo and Bernadette Clay submitted declarations describing Jay and Suzanne’s relationship, evidence which contradicts Plaintiffs’ claims of undue influence. 

Further, because the requested injunction is mandatory, the balance of hardships tips towards Defendants.  And Plaintiffs do not provide sufficient evidence that pecuniary relief would be inadequate in this case.  Thus, the request for mandatory relief to compel Defendants to deposit $809,622.06 with the Court is denied.  Indeed, injunctive relief is typically appropriate only where money damages would be insufficient—and here the relief is essentially entirely monetary.  It is also appears this “equity” is already imbedded in the Menifee property which is discussed below.

Plaintiffs also seek a prohibitory injunction enjoining Defendants from transferring the Menifee Property or selling any interest in the Menifee Property.  Plaintiffs, however, concede that they recorded a lis pendens against that property, which “should restrict the JP Erb Trust from transferring the Menifee Property to any third-party buyer in a traditional sale transaction.”  (Motion at 9:1-2.)  Plaintiffs are apparently concerned that Defendants may take some other action that jeopardizes their alleged inheritance monies.  However, a preliminary injunction “is proper only if there is a substantial basis to suppose that the defendant, if not restrained, will actually engage in the conduct sought to be enjoined.”  (Epstein v. Superior Ct. (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1405, 1410 (emphasis in original).)  Plaintiffs have not provided any evidence that Defendants have made or will make any attempts to jeopardize their alleged inheritance.  The request for a prohibitory injunction is denied.

Plaintiffs to give notice.