Judge: Michael T. Smyth, Case: 37-2024-00010272-CL-MC-CTL, Date: 2024-04-19 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - April 18, 2024

04/19/2024  09:00:00 AM  C-67 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Michael T. Smyth

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Limited  Misc Complaints - Other Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2024-00010272-CL-MC-CTL ABDELRAHMAN VS CITY HEIGHTS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

The court requests a brief discussion as to whether Plaintiff has been able to peacefully access and maintain her plots.

Assuming there has been no further issues with respect to access and maintenance of the plots, Plaintiff Fatima Abdelrahman's request for a preliminary injunction is GRANTED. Plaintiff's request for judicial notice is granted. (ROA 27.) The court will hear from the parties with respect to a bond.

As an initial matter, the court agrees that Defendant's response papers were unsupported by any admissible evidence and that the evidence lodged on April 17, 2024 is untimely. Moreover, the Defendant's response papers do not cite directly to the lodged evidence. Even so, in its discretion, the court has considered everything before it.

'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. . . 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.' (Butt v. State of California (1992) 4 Cal.4th 668, 677–678.) 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 is on the moving party seeking injunctive relief to show all elements necessary to support the issuance of a preliminary injunction. (O'Connell v. Super. Ct. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1452, 1481.) The court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated a reasonable probability of success with respect to her forcible detainer claim. There is sufficient evidence that Plaintiff was ejected without proper process.

Moreover, the balancing of the relative interim harms weighs in favor of Plaintiff's maintaining her plots.

Defendant seeks to narrow the injunction but has not proven that it has the authority to impose any rents or otherwise control the property. That will apparently be decided before Judge Medel in Case No.

37-2024-00009788. As such, the court will not impose restrictions on Plaintiff to not to plant new crops.

With respect to rent, the court will hear from the parties regarding a undertaking for a year's rent to be submitted to the court.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3102829  4