Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV01497, Date: 2025-05-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV01497    Hearing Date: May 19, 2025    Dept: 29

Amorim v. 99 Cents Only Stores
23STCV01497
Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order filed by Defendant 99 Cents Only Stores.

Tentative

The motion is denied without prejudice.

Background

On January 23, 2023, Lisa Amorim (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against 99 Cents Only Stores (“99 Cents”), Luis Gomez (“Gomez”), and Does 1 through 50 for premises liability and assault and battery arising out of an incident on February 9, 2021, in which, Plaintiff alleges, she tripped and fell, and subsequently Defendant Gomez placed his hands under her blouse “under the guise of” trying to help Plaintiff up. (Complaint, ¶ 21.)

On April 14, 2023, 99 Cents and Gomez (collectively, “Defendants”) filed an answer.

On April 12, 2024, Defendants filed a notice that 99 Cents had filed a petition for relief under chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code and that, pursuant to Bankruptcy Code section 362, subdivision (a), the continuation of this action against 99 Cents was automatically stayed.  The Court subsequently placed the Final Status Conference off calendar and vacated the trial date.

On April 8, 2025, the Court continued a Status Conference re Bankruptcy to August 20, 2025, and set a Trial Setting Conference the same day.

On April 23, 2025, Defendants filed this motion for a temporary restraining order and issuance of an Order to Show Cause re Preliminary Injunction.

No opposition has been filed.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 526, subdivision (a), provides:

“(a) An injunction may be granted in the following cases:

(1) 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.

(2) When it appears by the complaint or affidavits that the commission or continuance of some act during the litigation would produce waste, or great or irreparable injury, to a party to the action.

(3) When it appears, during the litigation, that a party to the action is doing, or threatens, or is about to do, or is procuring or suffering to be done, some act in violation of the rights of another party to the action respecting the subject of the action, and tending to render the judgment ineffectual.

(4) When pecuniary compensation would not afford adequate relief.

(5) Where it would be extremely difficult to ascertain the amount of compensation which would afford adequate relief.

(6) Where the restraint is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of judicial proceedings.

(7) Where the obligation arises from a trust.”

“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. No preliminary injunction shall be granted without notice to the opposing party.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 527, subd. (a).)

In ruling on a request for a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction, a court must consider two factors: (1) whether there is a “reasonable probability” that the moving party will prevail on the merits; and (2) whether the moving party is “likely to suffer greater injury from a denial of the injunction than the [nonmoving parties] are likely to suffer from its grant.”  (Robbins v. Super. Ct. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 199, 2016; see also Amgen Inc. v. Health Care Services (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 716, 731; ITV Gurney Holding v. Gurney (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 22, 29.)  “The trial court’s determination must be guided by a mix of the potential-merit and interim-harm factors; the greater the [moving party’s] showing on one, the less must be shown on the other to support an injunction.”  (Butt v. State (1992) 4 Cal.4th 668, 678; see also Jamison v. Department of Transp. (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 356, 361-362; SB Liberty, LLC v. Isla Verde Ass’n (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 272, 280.)

“Trial courts generally have the inherent power to stay proceedings in the interests of¿justice and to promote judicial efficiency.”¿¿(Freiberg v. City of Mission Viejo¿(1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1489.)¿ They also have inherent powers to manage and fashion procedures to control litigation and ensure the orderly administration of justice.¿¿(Cottle v. Superior Court¿(1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1367, 1376-79;¿see also Code Civ. Proc., § 128, subd. (a)(3) and (a)(5).)

When a defendant commences bankruptcy proceedings in federal court, all civil proceedings against that defendant are automatically stayed. (Higgins v. Super. Ct. (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 973, 979.)  But this automatic stay “does not apply to non-debtor codefendants.” (Cross v. Cooper (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 357, 365, fn. 2.) 

Discussion

Defendant 99 Cents moves for a temporary restraining order and issuance of an OSC re Preliminary Injunction, arguing in its memorandum that it faces imminent harm from litigation by Plaintiff of her causes of action against Defendant Gomez, an employee of 99 Cents.  As 99 Cents explains, it may have a duty to defend and/or to indemnify Gomez.

Defendant 99 Cents is the party that has filed this motion.  As is true for any other motion, a motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction must be supported by evidence – generally in the form of a declaration or affidavit and (frequently) properly authenticated documents that establish the factual basis for the requested relief.  (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1112; 2 Weil & Brown, California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (2024), ¶¶ 9:43, 9:574.)

Here, however, 99 Cents offers no declaration, no affidavit, and no supporting evidence in support of its motion.  99 Cents presents no evidence to support its argument that it is likely to prevail on the merits or that it would likely suffer harm in the absence of the requested injunction.  The Court has no reason to conclude, on this record, that there is an imminent risk that Plaintiff is about to take any action at all, much less any action that should be enjoined.

The automatic stay is in place by operation of law and protects 99 Cents.  If Plaintiff violates the automatic stay, 99 Cents may seek relief from the bankruptcy court.  But no reason has been shown that this Court should issue an injunction that simply restates the provisions of the automatic stay – or expands it.

The motion is denied without prejudice.

Conclusion

The Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the motion for a temporary restraining order and issuance of an OSC re preliminary injunction filed by Defendant 99 Cents Only Stores, LLC.

The Judicial Assistant is directed to give notice.