Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 21STCV45893, Date: 2022-08-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV45893    Hearing Date: August 19, 2022    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: August 19, 2022

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Moving Party: Plaintiffs Richard Henkin, Sonia Henkin, Eric Shani, and Jessica Shani

Responding Party: Defendant Cohen & Kashani LLC

T/R:     PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IS GRANTED IN PART.

PLAINTIFFS TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at SMCdept54@lacourt.org with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

The Court considers the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

In deciding whether to issue a preliminary injunction, the court looks to two factors: “(1) the likelihood that the Petitioner will prevail on the merits, and (2) the relative balance of harms that is likely to result from the granting or denial of interim injunctive relief.”  (White v. Davis (2003) 30 Cal.4th 528, 553-54.) The factors are interrelated, with a greater showing on one permitting a lesser showing on the other.  (Dodge, Warren & Peters Ins. Services, Inc. v. Riley (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 1414, 1420.) 

This action concerns the property line and easement rights of neighboring real property. Plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction restraining Defendant from:

(a) Interfering with the use by Plaintiffs and their invitees of that particular easement described in the Complaint filed in the within cause (“Easement”);

(b) Maintaining and/or constructing any obstructions on, along or across the Easement that interfere with the free and unobstructed use of the Easement; and

(c) Interfering with Plaintiffs’ removal of the fences recently constructed along the length of and within the Easement and which obstruct Plaintiffs’ free and unobstructed use of the Easement or, alternatively, removing those portions of the fence recently constructed along the length of the Easement which are situated to prevent free and unobstructed use of the Easement.

On August 10, 2022, the Court entered a temporary restraining order stopping Defendant’s construction of a fence in the disputed area. That TRO expires on August 19, 2022 and will be superseded by the Court’s ruling on this motion for preliminary injunction.

Plaintiffs assert that if this fence is completed it will prevent Plaintiffs from accessing the easement. In opposition, Defendant asserts that halting construction of the fence will accomplish nothing because Plaintiffs previously had erected a fence in the same area.

Both sides vehemently dispute the other’s right of access to the subject area. In apparently tit-for-tat fashion, the parties have taken actions to lay claim to the area and have engaged in abusive and annoying behavior. Neither side will win or gain an advantage in this lawsuit through self-help. Also, the parties need to start using their indoor voices.

The evidence is sufficient to show Plaintiffs have a possibility of prevailing on the merits. The balance of harms strongly weighs in favor of an injunction prohibiting either side from obstructing or preventing the other’s access to and use of disputed area. The Court enters the following preliminary injunction, which will remain in effect until the conclusion of this lawsuit or further order by the Court:

Defendant is ordered to remove the partially built fence within 7 days. No party or their agents or employees may erect any fence, wall, or barrier on the disputed area, or place any items in the disputed area that obstruct or interfere with the other side’s access to and use of the disputed area.

Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction is GRANTED IN PART.