Judge: Nick A. Dourbetas, Case: 2022-01277095, Date: 2022-09-30 Tentative Ruling

1. Order to Show Cause re: Why Mr. Griswold's appointment should not be confirmed
2. Order to Show Cause re: Why a preliminary injunction to the same effect should not issue for the duration of the receivership

Motions No. 1 & 2.

Plaintiff’s Order to Show Cause to Confirm Appointment of Recover and Injunctive Relief is DENIED in its entirety. (See Civ. Code § 564(b)(2).)

A receivership is an expensive and time-consuming remedy, and thus is available only where a more “delicate,” alternative remedy (i.e., injunction, writ of possession, attachment, provisional director, lis pendens) is inadequate. In other words, it should not be requested unless absolutely essential because no other remedy will do the job. (See City & County of San Francisco v. Daley (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 734, 745.)

Plaintiff failed to establish one of the statutory grounds for appointment of a receiver. Miller v. Oliver (1917) 174 Cal. 407, 410. Since a receivership is an equitable remedy, the equitable considerations in an injunction proceeding apply—i.e., there must be a showing of irreparable injury and inadequacy of other remedies. (Alhambra-Shumway Mines, Inc. v. Alhambra Gold Mine Corp. (1953) 116 Cal.App.2d 869, 872.) Plaintiff has not shown the potential for irreparable injury and inadequacy of other remedies.

The interim appointed receiver’s 09/27/22 report confirms that the defendants are currently residing in the subject residence. Given that the property is owner occupied, does not generate income, and does not appear to be in risk of damage or further degradation, the court sees no reason to invoke the drastic remedy of appointing a receiver based upon the record before the court.

The previously issued TRO is ordered vacated immediately.

The interim appointment of Mr. Griswold as receiver is also vacated effective immediately.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.