COTA vs HORSPOOL

4. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MOTION FOR AN ORDER CITY OF DESERT HOT APPROVING RECEIVER'S PSC1802371 SPRINGS VS. DE LA DISCHARGE; FINAL FEES AND ROSA COSTS AND DISTRIBUTION OF REMAINING FUNDS Tentative Ruling:

GRANT

5. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME HEARING RE: PRELIMINARY CVRI2602721 COTA vs HORSPOOL INJUNCTION AS TO BROOKE HORSPOOL Tentative Ruling:

DENY

Defendant has provided declarations from the previous owners of the neighboring parcel, Kimberly and Jason Peter, asserting that Plaintiff only had a license, granting Plaintiff permission to use the disputed portion of the property, and Plaintiff was never granted an ownership interest or easement over the disputed parcel. Plaintiff cannot meet his burden on a motion for preliminary injunction of showing a probability of prevailing on the merits. In addition, the motion is moot because the fence has already been completed.

To the extent that Plaintiff now asks for the removal of the fence, that is a request for a mandatory injunction, an injunction that compels a party to perform an affirmative act that changes the position of both parties. Mandatory injunctions are granted only in those extreme cases where the right thereto is clearly established. (Teachers Ins. & Annuity Ass’n v. Furlotti (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1487.) Plaintiff here has not established such a clear right.