Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 24STCV28821, Date: 2025-02-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV28821    Hearing Date: February 18, 2025    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: February 18, 2025

Department 54, Judge Maurice Leiter

Motion to Modify Preliminary Injunction

Moving Party: Plaintiff Yellow Owl Properties Managements, Inc.

Responding Party: Defendant Christian Arturo Llamas Corona

T/R:     PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO MODIFY PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IS DENIED.

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 opposition.

California Code of Civil Procedure § 533 states: In any action, the court may on notice modify or dissolve an injunction or temporary restraining order upon a showing that there has been a material change in the facts upon which the injunction or temporary restraining order was granted, that the law upon which the injunction or temporary restraining order was granted has changed, or that the ends of justice would be served by the modification or dissolution of the injunction or temporary restraining order.

Plaintiff moves to modify the preliminary injunction issued by Department 86 on November 26, 2024. This action concerns the ownership of Plaintiff Yellow Owl between Defendant Christian Arturo Llamas Corona and his sisters, Jessica and Claudia. The preliminary injunction prohibited the parties from interfering with the properties and rent collection controlled by the others until the resolution of Defendant’s Corp. Code § 709 application, which permits shareholders to challenge “the validity of any election or appointment of any director of any domestic corporation.” This application was denied by Department 86 on December 19, 2024.

Plaintiff asserts that the preliminary injunction should now be modified to prohibit Defendant from interfering with Yellow Owl’s properties and rent collection. In opposition, Defendant emphasizes that though 709 application was denied, Department 86 merely found that Defendant did not show he had standing to bring a 709 action. In this ruling, the Court specifically declined to determine who the shareholders or directors of Yellow Owl are. (Pl. RJN, Exh. 1.) Defendant also represents that he collected rent from only one tenant, Sergio Barraza, who now pays rent into his attorney’s client trust account per the orders of the original preliminary injunction. Defendant argues that this makes modification unnecessary.

The Court declines to modify the injunction. The Court in the Corp. Code § 709 matter specifically did not make any factual determinations regarding the ownership of Yellow Owl. The parties’ ownership remains at issue, making the mutual injunction appropriate.

Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.