Judge Matthew C. Braner, Case 37-2022-00046039-CU-MC-CTL 2024-01-12 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2022-00046039-CU-MC-CTL, Date: 2024-01-12 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - January 11, 2024

01/12/2024 09:00:00 AM C-60 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Matthew C. Braner

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited Misc Complaints - Other Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2022-00046039-CU-MC-CTL SALT REWW LP VS SAN TOMAS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Defendant San Tomas Limited Partnership's motion for preliminary injunction is DENIED.

The parties' evidentiary objections are overruled.

As an initial matter, the court is not persuaded that Code of Civil Procedure section 526, standing alone, governs the determination of Defendant's motion. That provision is applicable to all injunctions, particularly injunctions on the merits (i.e., after trial), and is therefore unhelpful to the key concerns relevant to a request for a preliminary injunction, which is authorized by a separate statutory provision.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 527, subd. (a).) 'In deciding whether to issue a preliminary injunction, a court must weigh two 'interrelated' factors: (1) the likelihood that the moving party will ultimately prevail on the merits and (2) the relative interim harm to the parties from issuance or nonissuance of the injunction.' (Butt v. State of California (1992) 4 Cal.4th 668, 677-678.) '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 an injunction.' (Id. at p. 678.) An injunction may not issue unless it is reasonably probable that the moving party will prevail on the merits. (San Francisco Newspaper Printing Co., Inc. v. Superior Court (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 438, 442.) The burden on the moving party seeking a preliminary injunction is far higher where the substance of the request is for a mandatory, rather than prohibitory, preliminary injunction. The 'general rule is that an injunction is prohibitory if it requires a person to refrain from a particular act and mandatory if it compels performance of an affirmative act that changes the position of the parties.' (Davenport v. Blue Cross of California (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 435, 446 [injunction was held to be mandatory where it compelled defendant insurer to authorize and pay for plaintiff's treatment, notwithstanding plaintiff's argument the injunction was prohibitory because it enjoined defendant from 'persisting in an anticipatory breach of its contract' that threatened her health, and her health was the 'status quo' that required preservation].) Here, Defendant claims its preliminary injunction request is entirely prohibitory (i.e., simply maintains the status quo) by framing the request as one to 'prohibit' interference from Plaintiff SALT REWW, LP and those acting on its behalf, with Defendant's purported exclusive right to manage and control the Belltown Inn. The court is not persuaded. What Defendant is really asking the court to do is to give it a legally enforceable mandate of full and exclusive control and management over the Belltown Inn, which is plainly a change in the status quo given that each party currently shares control and management.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3038572 27 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: SALT REWW LP VS SAN TOMAS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP [IMAGED] 37-2022-00046039-CU-MC-CTL Mandatory preliminary injunctions are rarely granted, and 'a very urgent case is required to justify a mandatory preliminary injunction and that a clear case of prospective injury is indispensable.' (Alvarez v. Eden Tp. Hosp. Dist. (1961) 191 Cal.App.2d 309, 312; see also Teachers Ins. & Annuity Assn. v. Furlotti (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1487, 1493 ['We emphasize that '[a] preliminary mandatory injunction is rarely granted, and is subject to stricter review on appeal. [Citation.] The granting of a mandatory injunction pending trial is not permitted except in extreme cases where the right thereto is clearly established.'].) Based on the legal authority and analysis and evidence in the record, and that Defendant seeks a mandatory preliminary injunction, Defendant has not met its burden on this application. Even if Defendant had sufficiently demonstrated, with relevant and admissible evidence, a probability of prevailing on the merits, it has not demonstrated that it or even the Belltown Inn will suffer irreparable harm if the mandatory preliminary injunction is not granted. Nothing in the record before the court suggests that Plaintiff is intentionally (or even unintentionally) engaging in conduct designed to reduce the value of the parties' shared business interests, nor that any potential harm to Defendant or the Belltown Inn cannot be cured with monetary damages.

Accordingly, Defendant's motion for preliminary injunction is denied.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3038572 27