Judge: Richard S. Whitney, Case: 37-2023-00038411-CU-BT-CTL, Date: 2023-10-13 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - October 11, 2023

10/13/2023  10:30:00 AM  C-68 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Richard S. Whitney

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Business Tort Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2023-00038411-CU-BT-CTL LUCKY PUP DOG RESCUE.COM VS RUSSELL [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

TENTATIVE RULING: PLAINTIFF'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION is GRANTED.

Plaintiffs LUCKY PUP DOG RESCUE.COM, SAMI JO MCCLISH, JENNA ALLERS, PATRICIA CROWSON, and SHERRY BOWMAN (collectively 'Plaintiffs') seek a preliminary injunction against Defendant LAUREN MARIE RUSSELL ('Defendant') in regard to the purported dog kennel and training business Defendant operates and the harassment of the senior citizen couple who run LUCKY PUP DOG RESCUE.COM, Christine and Steve Haslet.

'[T]rial courts should evaluate two interrelated factors when deciding whether or not to issue a preliminary injunction. The first is the likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits at trial. The second is the interim harm that the plaintiff is likely to sustain if the injunction were denied as compared to the harm that the defendant is likely to suffer if the preliminary injunction were issued.' (IT Corp. v. County of Imperial (1983) 35 Cal.3d 63, 69–70.) '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, 678.) 'A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction bears the burden of presenting facts which show a reasonable probability that he will succeed on the merits.' (Citizens for Better Streets v. Board of Sup'rs of City and County of San Francisco (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1, 6.) Failure to file any opposition to the motion indicates Defendant's acquiescence that the motion is meritorious. (L.R. 2.1.19(B) ['The court may deem a lack of opposition to be a concession that a motion is meritorious']; See California Rules of Court, Rule 8.54(c).) The unopposed motion is granted. Plaintiffs have shown a reasonable probability via the submission of various declarations to support the various actions taken by Defendant. Defendant failed to file any opposition to present any evidence or legal argument. The motion is granted. The restrictions set forth in the Order dated September 26, 2023, shall remain in effect during the pendency of this action. (See ROA # 51.) Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3020015