Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 23STCV10365, Date: 2023-09-29 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV10365 Hearing Date: September 29, 2023 Dept: 31
TENTATIVE
Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary
injunction is DENIED.
Legal Standard
The purpose of a
preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo pending final resolution
upon a trial. (See Scaringe v. J.C.C. Enterprises, Inc. (1988) 205
Cal.App.3d 1536.) The status quo has been defined to mean the last actual
peaceable, uncontested status which preceded the pending controversy. (14859
Moorpark Homeowner’s Assn. v. VRT Corp. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1396. 1402.)
Preliminary injunctive relief requires the use of competent evidence to create
a sufficient factual showing on the grounds for relief. (See, e.g., ReadyLink Healthcare v.
Cotton (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1016; Ancora-Citronelle Corp.
v. Green (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 146, 150.) Injunctive relief may be granted
based on a verified complaint only if it contains sufficient evidentiary, not
ultimate, facts. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 527(a).) For this reason, a pleading
alone rarely suffices. (Weil & Brown, California Procedure Before Trial,
9:579, 9(ll)-21 (The Rutter
Group 2007).) The burden of proof is on the plaintiff as moving party. (O’Connell
v. Superior Court (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1452, 1481.) A plaintiff seeking
injunctive relief must show the absence of an adequate damages remedy at law.
(Code Civ. Proc. § 526(4); Thayer Plymouth Center, Inc. v. Chrysler Motors
(1967) 255 Cal.App.2d 300, 307.)
The
trial court considers two factors in determining whether to issue a preliminary
injunction: (1) the likelihood the plaintiff will prevail on the merits of its
case at trial, and (2) the interim harm the plaintiff is likely to sustain if
the injunction is denied as compared to the harm the defendant is likely to
suffer if the court grants a preliminary injunction. (Code Civ. Proc. § 526(a);
Husain v. McDonald’s Corp. (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 860, 866-67.) The
balancing of harm between the parties “involves consideration of such things as
the inadequacy of other remedies, the degree of irreparable harm, and the
necessity of preserving the status quo.” (Husain, supra, 205 Cal.App.4th
at 867.) The
moving party must prevail on both factors to obtain an injunction. (Sahlolbei
v. Providence Healthcare, Inc. (2003) 112 Cal. App. 4th 1137, 1145.)
A Court
may not grant a preliminary injunction, regardless of the balance of interim
harm, unless there is some possibility that the Plaintiff would ultimately
prevail on the merits of the claim. (Hunt v. Superior Court (1999) 21
Cal.4th 984, 999-1000.) The decision to grant a preliminary
injunction generally lies within the sound discretion of the trial court and
will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. (Thornton v.
Carlson (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1249, 1255.)
A preliminary
injunction ordinarily cannot take effect unless and until the plaintiff
provides an undertaking for damages which the enjoined defendant may sustain by
reason of the injunction if the court finally decides that the plaintiff was
not entitled to the injunction. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 529(a); Cal. Rules of
Court, rule 3.1150(f); City of South San Francisco v. Cypress Lawn Cemetery
Assn. (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 916, 920.)
Discussion
Plaintiff
does not substantively argue or cite to any supporting evidence for the
likelihood of success or the irreparable harm elements in his motion. Plaintiff did file a
declaration. Plaintiff’s declaration states that on
December 3, 2022, Plaintiff contacted the Child Support Services Division
(CSSD) to inform them of Plaintiff’s most up-to-date address. Plaintiff
requested that all future correspondence be sent to this address. Plaintiff
also provided this same address in Plaintiff’s Notice Contesting Validity of
Support Order & Jurisdiction, which was filed with the CSSD on February 8,
2023. (Hinton Decl., ¶ 2.) On March 24, 2023, an income
withholding order is set to take effect that would garnish Plaintiff’s wages.
However, the CSSD did not properly serve Plaintiff with the order or give
notice of the hearing, which violates Plaintiff’s due process rights. (Hinton
Decl., ¶ 7.)
42 U.S.C. section
1983 provides: “Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance,
regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of
Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States
or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any
rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall
be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other
proper proceeding for redress . . . .” (42 U.S.C. § 1983.)
The U.S. Supreme
Court has held that local governmental entities and local officials can be
liable under section 1983, provided that an official policy or custom leads
to the violation of the plaintiff’s constitutional rights. (See Monell
v. Department of Social Servs. (1978) 436 U.S. 658, 690-91; see also Pierce
v. San Mateo County Sheriff’s Dept. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 995; Harman
v. City and County of San Francisco (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 1279, 1295.)
There is no evidence
that an official policy or custom led to Plaintiff’s deprivation of rights
here. In addition, while the complaint alleges multiple causes of action,
Plaintiff has not discussed that there is a likelihood to prevail on any of
these causes of action either in the motion or declaration. As such, Plaintiff
has not met Plaintiff’s burden to show a likelihood on prevailing on the merits
of the claims.
Plaintiff’s declaration is not enough to satisfy Plaintiff’s
burden to show “show all elements necessary to support issuance of a
preliminary injunction.” (O’Connell, supra, 141 Cal.App.4th at 1481.)¿ A
party moving for preliminary injunction must show both a likelihood of
prevailing on the merits and that the harm it suffers outweighs the injury
incurred by the enjoined party if an injunction is not granted. (Sahlolbei,
supra, 112 Cal. App. 4th at 1145.) Plaintiff has also not discussed the
balancing of harm other than making conclusory statements.
Lastly, Plaintiff provides no discussion of an undertaking,
which is also required.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs’
motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED.