Judge: Robert P. Dahlquist, Case: 37-2023-00032103-CU-BC-NC, Date: 2023-12-01 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

SOUTH BUILDING TENTATIVE RULINGS - November 30, 2023

12/01/2023  02:30:00 PM  N-29 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Robert P Dahlquist

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Breach of Contract/Warranty Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2023-00032103-CU-BC-NC 6 CARAT ENTERPISE INC VS VSVP, LP [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Plaintiff 6 Carat Enterprise, Inc.'s request for a preliminary injunction (ROA # 22) is denied without prejudice to the possibility of plaintiff seeking some other provisional remedy, such as a prohibitory injunction.

There are two types of injunctions – mandatory injunctions and prohibitory injunctions. An injunction is considered mandatory if it changes the status quo by requiring performance of an affirmative act. Daly v. San Bernardino County Bd. of Supervisors (2021) 11 Cal. 5th 1030, 1041.

Plaintiff's proposed order (ROA # 44) includes five paragraphs of proposed relief. The court has no trouble concluding that four of the five paragraphs (paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 5) would be mandatory injunctions. It is a closer question as to whether paragraph 4 would be a mandatory injunction but the court resolves this question by finding that paragraph 4 also constitutes a mandatory injunction. Also, as to paragraph 4, it is not clear why a court order would be necessary for plaintiff to consult with the persons and entities identified in that paragraph. It appears from the papers submitted by the parties that plaintiff is already consulting with those persons and entities.

A mandatory injunction will be granted only in extreme cases when the right to such an injunction is clearly established. Slatkin v. White (2002) 102 Cal. App. 4th 963, 972. Because mandatory preliminary injunctions alter the status quo and are difficult to supervise and enforce, a very strong showing is required (e.g., substantial irreparable injury, a clear violation of law, a denial of constitutional rights), including substantiation that the moving party is likely to prevail in the action and that a weighing of the relative hardship to the parties if an injunction is or is not issued clearly favors the moving party. See City of Corona v AMG Outdoor Adver., Inc. (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 291, 299 [mandatory injunctions pending trial should be granted only in extreme cases when right to injunction is clearly established].

After careful review of the information provided by the parties, the court is not persuaded that the standards set forth above are satisfied in this instance. The court is not persuaded that this is an extreme case, warranting issuance of a mandatory injunction. Plaintiff could probably obtain some other provisional remedy, such as a prohibitory injunction, but the court is not persuaded that it should issue the mandatory injunction now being requested.

For these reasons, the court denies the request for a preliminary injunction without prejudice to the possibility that plaintiff may seek and obtain some other provisional remedy, such as a prohibitory injunction.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3047641 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  6 CARAT ENTERPISE INC VS VSVP, LP [IMAGED]  37-2023-00032103-CU-BC-NC This is the tentative ruling for an appearance hearing (in person or remote) at 2:30 p.m. on Friday, December 1, 2023. If no party appears at the hearing, this tentative ruling will become the order of the court as of December 1, 2023. If the parties are satisfied with the court's tentative ruling or do not otherwise wish to argue the motion, they are encouraged to give notice to the court and each other of their intention not to appear, though this notice is not required.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3047641