1) Order to Show Cause re: Preliminary Injunction — DENIED
The order to show cause regarding Plaintiffs Michael and Rebecca Guerrero?s requested preliminary injunction is denied.
Code Civ. Proc. ? 526(a)(3) provides that an injunction may be granted: ?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.? See San Francisco Newspaper Printing Co., Inc. v. Superior Court (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 438, 442, and Rutter, Civil Procedure Before Trial, Section 9:528. The purpose of Section 526(a)(3) is to preserve the status quo pending litigation. See Stockton v. Newman (1957) 148 Cal. App. 2d 558, 563.
A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction bears the burden of presenting facts which show a reasonable probability that it will succeed on the merits, Fleishman v. Superior Court, 102 Cal.App.4th 350, 356 (2002), and that harm that would result if a preliminary injunction was not granted.Casmalia Resources, Ltd. v. County of Santa Barbara (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 827, 838.? In determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction, the Court should balance the equities:? (1) are the plaintiffs likely to suffer greater injury from a denial of the injunction than the defendants are likely to suffer from its grant and (2) is there a reasonable probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits.? Teamster Local 856 v. Priceless, LLC (2003) 112 Cal. App. 4th 1500, 1509.? These prongs are considered on a sliding scale.? ?[T]he more likely it is that plaintiffs will ultimately prevail, the less severe must be the harm they allege will occur if the injunction does not issue.?? Right Site Coalition v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. (2008) 160 Cal. App. 4th 336, 342.
On the current record, Plaintiffs have not shown a likelihood of prevailing on the merits.
Though given an opportunity, Plaintiffs did not file evidence rebutting the showing of the Ward Decl., Ex. B as to the timing of Plaintiffs? attempt to make their second payment under their trial payment plan (?TPP?).? According to the unrebutted evidence, it appears that Plaintiffs did not attempt to make their second payment under their TPP until September.? The payment was due on August 1; even with a 30 day grace period it was due by the end of August.? Defendants could properly reject a payment attempted in September.
?
2)Case Management Conference ? PARTIES TO APPEAR