Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 25STCV13779, Date: 2025-05-20 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 25STCV13779 Hearing Date: May 20, 2025 Dept: 82
Dora Ivette Pedroza, et al. Case No.
25STCV13779
v. Hearing
Date: May 20, 2025
Location:
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Michael Hurtado, et al. Department: 82
Temporary
Restraining Order
Order to Show
Cause why Preliminary Injunction Should Not Issue
Plaintiffs
Dora Ivette Pedroza (“Pedroza”) and 11021 Hesby Street, LLC (collectively,
“Plaintiffs”) seek a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction
against Michael Hurtado and Veronica Villarreal (collectively, “Defendants”),
as well as their agents, representatives, employees, assigns, and anyone acting
on their behalf. In
deciding whether to grant a preliminary injunction, the court looks to two
factors: (1) The likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits, and
(2) The relative balance of harms that is likely to result from the granting or
denial of interim injunctive relief.
(See White v. Davis (2003) 30
Cal.4th 528, 553-54.) The factors are
interrelated, with a greater showing on one permitting a lesser showing on the
other. (Dodge, Warren & Peters Ins. Services, Inc. v. Riley (2003) 105
Cal.App.4th 1414, 1420.) If the
balancing of harms strongly favors the moving party, there need only be “some
possibility” that the moving party will prevail on the merits. (See Jamison v. Department of
Transportation (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 356, 362, citing Butt v. State of
California (1992) 4 Cal.4th 668, 678.)
Plaintiffs
demonstrate a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits at this stage of
the proceedings. Plaintiffs rely on the
following facts:
·
11021 Hesby
Street, LLC (the “Company”) owns a multi-family residential apartment
complex. (Pedroza Decl. ¶ 7 & Exh.
A.)
·
Pedroza is the sole managing member of the
Company. (Pedroza Decl. ¶ 7 & Exh.
A.)
·
Pedroza’s son and daughter-in-law, Michael
Hurtado and Veronica Villareal, respectively, were living in her apartment from
September 9, 2024, to February 22, 2025.
(Id. ¶¶ 6-7.)
·
Someone who had access to Pedroza’s
documents—presumably Defendant Michael Hurtado and/or Defendant Veronica
Villareal—forged Pedroza’s signature on corporate documents and named Michael
Hurtado as the managing member of the Company.
(Id. ¶ 7 & Exh. B.) The fraudulent documents also changed the
Company’s principal address, mailing address, California office address, and
agent address to the address where Defendants were going to live. (Id. ¶ 7 & Exh. B.)
·
On or about January 14, 2025, Defendant Michael
Hurtado executed a Deed of Trust encumbering the Company’s property. (Id. ¶ 8.) The lender is SGLC, Inc. and the loan amount
secured by the note is $1 million. (Ibid.;
see also Babcock Decl. ¶ 5.)
·
The loan
proceeds were transferred to a Wells Fargo Bank Account in the name, of Hesby
LLC, Account Number XXXXXX2239. (Babcock
Decl. ¶ 5 & Exh. A. )
The court finds that Plaintiffs have demonstrated a
sufficient likelihood of success on the merits.
The court also finds that Plaintiffs have demonstrated that they will
suffer irreparable harm absent the temporary restraining order, viz.,
that Defendants will abscond with the funds.
By contrast, the court finds little harm to Defendants in issuing this
temporary restraining order. Plaintiffs
have not provided notice to Defendants.
The court finds that notice to Defendants was not required under Code of
Civil Procedure section 527(c)(1) and (2) because there is substantial evidence
that Defendants will dissipate assets, forge documents, and/or abscond with the
funds.
Based upon
the foregoing, the court orders as follows:
1. The court grants Plaintiffs’ ex
parte application for a temporary restraining order.
2. The court orders that Defendants
Michael Hurtado and Veronica Villarreal, as well as their agents,
representatives, employees, assigns, and anyone acting on their behalf, shall
not do any of the following:
a.
Conducting any transfer or
attempted transfer of the disputed funds in the Wells Fargo Account #XXXXX2239,
during the pendency of this action.
b. Filing any documents with the California Secretary of State
for any business entity for which any Plaintiff in this action is the managing
member of.
c. Representing to any person, business entity, or governmental
entity that they are a managing member, officer or director of any business
entity for which they are not a managing member, officer or director.
d. Using any documents that purport to show that they are the
managing member, officer or director of any business entity that they are not
the managing member, officer or director of for any purpose.
3. The court issues an Order to Show Cause
(“OSC”) why a preliminary injunction shall not issue on the same terms. The court sets the following schedule:
a. Plaintiffs shall serve the summons,
complaint, ex parte application, and order, as well as all other necessary
pleadings, upon Defendants on or before May 23, 2025.
b. Plaintiffs shall file a proof of
service on or before May 30, 2025.
c. Defendants shall file and serve any
opposition on or before June 4, 2025.
d. Plaintiffs shall file and serve any
reply brief on or before June 6, 2025.
e. The court shall hold a hearing on the
OSC on June 11, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. The
court provides notice that if Defendants do not file an opposition to the OSC
and appear at the hearing, either remotely or in-person, absent good cause, the
court will issue a preliminary injunction.
4. Plaintiffs also request an OSC why a
writ of attachment should not issue.
Plaintiffs did not seek a writ of attachment in their ex parte
application. If Plaintiffs seek a writ
of attachment, they may file an ex parte application for a writ of
attachment using the Judicial Council forms, including a proposed order.
5. Plaintiffs’ counsel shall provide
notice and file proof of service with the court.
IT IS SO ORDERED
Dated: May 20, 2025 ___________________________
Stephen
I. Goorvitch
Superior
Court Judge