Judge: Nathan R. Scott, Case: Kossler v. Galileo Hunt, Date: 2022-09-02 Tentative Ruling

Defendant/cross-complainant Arash Durrani’s application for preliminary injunction is denied.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 526; see also Costa Mesa City Employees' Assoc. v. City of Costa Mesa (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 298, 309 [balancing standard]; Doyka v. Superior Court (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 1134, 1136 [injunction unavailable to prohibit use of unspecified funds].) 

While Durrani contends an injunction is needed to keep Galileo Hunt LLC as a going concern, both parties seek dissolution of the LLC and Durrani hasn’t shown he can keep the LLC running without Kossler’s services. 

Moreover, Durrani’s claims can be fairly compensated with money damages.  (See Jessen v. Keystone Savings & Loan Assoc. (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 454, 457-458; see also 1/24/22 minute order.]

And Durrani’s request for an order requiring Kossler to “return all access and management controls” for “newly created financial account,” the Galileo website, or the Galileo email account (Not. Mot. #3, 5, 6), seeks a unwarranted mandatory injunction.  (See Teachers Ins. & Annuity Assn. v. Furlotti (1999) 70 Cal.App.4^th 1487, 1493 [mandatory injunctions “not permitted except in extreme cases where the right thereto is clearly established”].) 

Durrani shall give notice.