Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 20SMCV01023, Date: 2025-04-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20SMCV01023    Hearing Date: April 23, 2025    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           Klenk v. GS Redwood Properties LLC, et al.

CASE NO.:                20SMCV01023

MOTION:                  Motion for Post-Trial Injunction

HEARING DATE:   4/23/2025

Legal Standard

Pursuant to Civil Code section 3422, “a final injunction may be granted to prevent the breach of an obligation existing in favor of the applicant: (1) Where pecuniary compensation would not afford adequate relief; (2) Where it would be extremely difficult to ascertain the amount of compensation which would afford adequate relief; (3) Where the restraint is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of judicial proceedings; or (4) Where the obligation arises from a trust.”  “The first two statutory grounds embody the requirement that to obtain an injunction a plaintiff ordinarily must show that the defendant's wrongful acts threaten to cause irreparable injury, meaning injury that cannot adequately be compensated in damages.” (Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. v. Helliker (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1135, 1167.)

Analysis

Plaintiff Wendy Klenk moves to “Reinstate Plaintiff’s Preliminary Injunction” and for Imposition of Sanctions against Defendant Greystar pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 177.5. The motion to “reinstate” the “preliminary” injunction is improper on its face. Plaintiff does not cite any authority for her motion to reinstate the dissolved injunction. “A preliminary injunction is an interim remedy designed to maintain the status quo pending a decision on the merits.” (MaJor v. Miraverde Homeowners Assn. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 618, 623.) There has already been a decision on the merits. Thus, the proper motion would be for a permanent injunction.

Further, Plaintiff only argues that the court improperly dissolved the preliminary injunction on March 15, 2024, based on false information that the remediation was complete. The motion is therefore an untimely motion for reconsideration under Code of Civil Procedure  section 1008. The motion is also denied as untimely.

Finally, Plaintiff fails to show entitlement to a permanent injunction. Critically, Plaintiff does not explain how the current record would support a permanent injunction based on her pled habitability, nuisance, or Proposition 65 claims. Plaintiff does not cite the trial record which might support her requested equitable relief for a permanent injunction. Plaintiff only offers Klenk’s declaration, claiming that her apartment still contained “excessive levels of environmental toxins” according to tests performed on February 27, 2024. Plaintiff also does not show that these excessive levels of toxins in February 2024 would risk irreparable harm. Moreover, the jury expressly rejected such claims, finding no habitability violation or nuisance attributable to Defendants. The jury only found negligence and awarded Plaintiff economic damages unrelated to her habitability claims. The Court is not inclined to deviate from the jury’s verdict.

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.