Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 24STCV21046, Date: 2025-01-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV21046    Hearing Date: January 9, 2025    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: January 9, 2025

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Moving Party: Plaintiff Periodic Holdings

Responding Party: None

T/R:      PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IS GRANTED.

PLAINTIFF 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 and reply. No opposition has been received.

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 restraining defendant McMurray, and their agents, servants, and employees, from any of the following actions during the pendency of this action:

a. Transferring any right, title, or interest in or to the Shares of WPFH (“the Shares”), whether they are restricted or unrestricted, in paper certificate or electronic or book entry form,

b. Depositing or allowing to be deposited the Shares in a Brokerage account, savings account, or any type of account or financial entity capable of holding the Shares;

c. Issuing any new certificate of ownership or title to the Shares;

d. Voiding, destroying, selling, junking, moving or in any way disposing of the Shares;

Plaintiff asserts that it gave Defendant McMurray over $35 million in shares in WPF Holdings as investment into a medical start-up. Plaintiff represents that Defendant has not performed any of the services or work promised in exchange for the investment and has refused to return the investment. Plaintiff argues that severe prejudice will result if Defendant is allowed to sell or transfer these shares during this action. Defendant does not oppose this motion to show otherwise.

The Court finds good cause for a preliminary injunction. The motion is GRANTED.