Judge: Richard Y. Lee, Case: 30-2022-01266291, Date: 2022-09-29 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Heather Brinson filed an “Amended Petition for an Order for a Preliminary Injunction” wherein she apparently seeks an injunction preventing her eviction from Defendant The Irvine Company LLC’s premises.

Initially, Code of Civ. Proc. §527(a) establishes that, “A preliminary injunction may be granted at any time before judgment upon a verified complaint, or upon affidavits if the complaint in the one case, or the affidavits in the other, show satisfactorily that sufficient grounds exist therefor.”

Additionally, Code of Civ. Proc. §526(a)(1) provides, in relevant part, that an “injunction may be granted” when “it appears by the complaint that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief demanded, and the relief, or any part thereof, consists in restraining the commission or continuance of the act complained of, either for a limited period or perpetually.”

In this instance, Plaintiff has not filed a verified complaint setting forth any claims or causes of action. Rather, Plaintiff initiated the action on June 23, 2022, by filing a “Petition for an Order for a Preliminary Injunction.” Plaintiff has not submitted any “affidavits”. Furthermore, in reviewing the initial Petition (ROA 1), the Amended Petition (ROA 45) and the points and authorities submitted therewith (ROA 46), the nature of the relief requested and the basis for such relief are unclear.

Furthermore, “A superior court must evaluate two interrelated factors when ruling on a request for a preliminary injunction: (1) the likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits at trial and (2) the interim harm that the plaintiff would be likely to sustain if the injunction were denied as compared to the harm the defendant would be likely to suffer if the preliminary injunction were issued.” [Smith v. Adventist Health System/ West (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 729, 749, see Brown v. Pacifica Found., Inc. (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 915, 925.]

But the trial court may not issue an injunction, regardless of the amount of interim harm, “unless there is some possibility” that plaintiff will ultimately prevail on the merits of the claim. [Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs v. County of Orange (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 29, 49.]

The burden is on plaintiff to show all elements necessary to support issuance of the injunction.  [O’Connell v. Superior Court (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1452, 1481.]

Here, Plaintiff failed to sustain her burden to show all elements necessary to support issuance of the injunction. She provides no facts or evidence that she would likely prevail on the merits at trial. To the extent the subject of the injunction is to prevent her eviction, Defendant provides evidence that eviction may be warranted as Plaintiff is allegedly in breach of the prior Settlement Agreement and 2018 Lease. See Declaration of Victoria Covey ¶9. Plaintiff provides no evidence that she is not in breach of those documents.

Finally, it appears Plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law. An unlawful detainer action has been filed by Defendant as of August 22, 2022. [RJN, Ex. 4.] Plaintiff filed an Answer thereto. [RJN, Ex. 5.] As Plaintiff will not be evicted prior to a ruling in that action, a ruling by this Court is unnecessary to preserve the status quo.

For the aforementioned reasons, the Court DENIES the petition for preliminary injunction.

The Court grants Defendant’s request for judicial notice (ROA 95) pursuant to Ca Evid. Code §452(d), to the extent the Court records exist, but not as to the truth of the contents therein.

Defendant to give notice.