Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 25SMCV01818, Date: 2025-04-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 25SMCV01818    Hearing Date: April 14, 2025    Dept: I

This is a request for a TRO and OSC re: PI.  Plaintiff lives in a neighborhood destroyed by the recent fires.  However, her home and that of defendant survived.  Plaintiff alleges that on Sunday March 16, 2025, defendant instructed a crew to enter plaintiff’s property and cut down a mature tree located there.  Plaintiff is concerned that there is a second tree on her property and that it, too, will be cut down by defendant absent the court’s intervention.  She seeks a TRO to prevent that in the short run, and a PI to prevent it until trial.

The purpose of a TRO is to protect and maintain the status quo ante.  In deciding whether to issue a TRO, the court looks to the plaintiff’s probability of success on the merits and the balance of hardships.  These two factors work together such that the stronger the showing on one, the less strong the showing needs to be on the other.

Based on the evidence currently before the court, plaintiff has made at least a colorable showing that defendant did in fact order people to cut down her tree.  It could be that someone else did so, or that this was done at the government’s behest, but there is at least a colorable showing that it was the defendant.  If that is indeed the case, it certainly would appear to be trespass, and improper.  Plaintiff would have the right to stop defendant from trespassing again.  She has made a good showing on the first prong.  As to the balance of hardships, there is no evidence of any hardship to the defense.  Plaintiff asks only that defendant stay off her property, which is hardly a hardship for the defense.  On the other side, if plaintiff is right, then she runs the risk of losing a second mature tree.  The balance tips decidedly in her favor.  And the status quo is that the trees are there.

Therefore, the motion is GRANTED.  The court will issue a TRO and an OSC re: PI.  The court will discuss timing with the parties.  Plaintiff is to prepare an order for the court’s signature later today.  The court is unsure why a proposed order was not included with the application.