Judge: Mark C. Kim, Case: 22LBCV00438, Date: 2023-01-24 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22LBCV00438 Hearing Date: January 24, 2023 Dept: S27
1. Background
Facts
Plaintiff, Interpool, Inc. dba Trac
Intermodal filed this action against Defendants, Blue Flash Express, Inc.,
Daniel Rodriguez, and Juana Rodriguez for breach of contract, common counts, possession
of personal property and damages, conversion, and injunctive relief. Plaintiff alleges Defendants have rented
chassis from Plaintiff, but have failed to remit payment for the chassis.
2. Motion
for Preliminary Injunction
a.
Parties’ Positions
Plaintiff seeks a preliminary
injunction prohibiting Defendants from taking any additional chassis out of Plaintiff’s
chassis pool during the pendency of this action. Plaintiff provides evidence that Defendants
have continually taken chassis out of the pool and failed to remit payment, and
seeks an order precluding them to do so in order to prevent irreparable harm.
Defendants oppose the motion. They contend Plaintiff has not met its burden
to show irreparable harm because the damages at issue are quantifiable and
monetary in nature. They also contend
Plaintiff has not shown the balancing of equities weighs in Plaintiff’s
favor.
Plaintiff, in reply, contends monetary
damages are insufficient because Defendants are likely insolvent.
b. Analysis
As noted above, Plaintiff provides
evidence that Defendants have not been paying for the chassis they removed from
the chassis pool. Defendants provide no
contrary evidence in the opposition. Plaintiff
therefore met its moving burden to show it is likely to prevail on the merits
of the motion.
The difficult issue is whether an
injunction should be granted where, as here, monetary damages are ascertainable
in amount. The general law in this
regard is that CCP §526(a) lists many of the traditional equity considerations
and requirements re granting of injunctions, and inadequacy of the legal remedy
is listed only 4th and 5th (“(4) when pecuniary compensation would not afford
adequate relief”; and “(5) where it would be extremely difficult to ascertain
the amount of compensation which would afford adequate relief”). But the
placement should not be misread. Injunctions will rarely be granted (absent
specific statutory authority) where a suit for damages provides an adequate
remedy. Thayer Plymouth Ctr., Inc. v.
Chrysler Motors Corp. (1967) 255 Cal.App.2d 300, 307; see also Pacific Decision
Sciences Corp. v. Superior Court (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1100, 1110.
However, in considering the
“adequacy” of damages as a remedy, the court may consider whether the party
against whom the judgment is sought is able to respond in damages. I.e., if the
defendant is shown to be insolvent, a monetary judgment may be inadequate. See West Coast Const. Co. v. Oceano Sanitary
Dist. (1971) 17 Cal.App.3d 693, 700.
Plaintiff herein merely asserts
that Defendants are “likely” insolvent, as they are not paying their
bills. Plaintiff does not cite any
authority concerning which party has the burden of proving insolvency. In West Coast, both the plaintiff and the
defendant submitted declarations specifically showing the defendant was
insolvent. Id. at 701.
The Court wishes to hear argument
concerning insolvency at the time of the hearing. If the Court is not satisfied after argument,
it will set an evidentiary hearing re: solvency. Because Defendants have superior knowledge of
their own solvency, the Court will place the burden on Defendants to show they
are solvent, rather than placing the burden on Plaintiff to show Defendants are
insolvent. If Defendants are insolvent,
the Court will grant the request for a preliminary injunction precluding them
from taking any additional chassis from Plaintiff’s chassis pool.
The Court notes that there is a CMC
scheduled for 1/27/23, three days after the hearing on this motion. The Court is inclined to advance the CMC to
today’s hearing date to avoid the need for a hearing on Friday. The Court asks Counsel to make arrangements
to appear remotely at today’s hearing.