Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 24STCV16293, Date: 2024-10-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV16293    Hearing Date: October 11, 2024    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: October 11, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Moving Party: Plaintiff VIG Private Lending, Inc.

Responding Party: Defendants Ilan Kenig and Avivit Kenig

T/R:      PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IS DENIED.

PETITIONER 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.

BACKGROUND

On September 18, 2024, Plaintiff VIG Private Lending, Inc. filed the operative first amended complaint against Defendants Ilan Kenig and Avivit Kenig, asserting causes of action for (1) private waste; (2) waste; (3) injunctive relief; (4) fraud; (5) intentional misrepresentation; and (6) negligent misrepresentation. Plaintiff alleges Defendants refuse to vacate real property after a foreclosure.

ANALYSIS

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.)

Plaintiff moves for a preliminary injunction allowing Plaintiff physical access to the property, to perform repairs and show the property to potential buyers. Plaintiff represents that there is significant water damage on the property that will continue to get worse if not remedied quickly.

In opposition, Defendants assert that the motion is moot because Plaintiff’s inspector already came to the property and found no damage. Defendants also contend that possession is being adjudicated in a separate unlawful detainer action between the parties. In reply, Plaintiff presents conflicting statements from Defendants in the unlawful detainer action stating that Defendants have refused to repair the premises.

An unlawful detainer action is an expedited process that should afford the parties sufficient remedy for possession issues. The Court declines to interfere with the unlawful detainer case by making orders regarding right of entry and possession. In addition, Plaintiff has not shown that the condition of the property is so poor that irreparable harm could occur without issuance of an injunction.

Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction is DENIED.