Jamison v. Darrel’s Mini Storage

(03) Tentative Ruling

Re: Jamison v. Darrel’s Mini Storage Case No. 26CU1050

Hearing Date: June 30, 2026 (Dept. 501)

Motion: Plaintiffs’ Application for a Temporary Restraining Order

Tentative Ruling:

To deny plaintiffs’ application for a temporary restraining order. (Code Civ. Proc., § 526.)

Explanation:

First, there is no proof of service on file showing that defendants have been served with the summons, complaint, or TRO application, so it does not appear that defendants have received notice of the pending case or the application for a TRO. Without proof that defendants were served with the summons, complaint, and TRO application, the court lacks jurisdiction over defendants and it would be a denial of due process to grant the application. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 527, “No preliminary injunction shall be granted without notice to the opposing party.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 527, subd. (a).) Therefore, unless plaintiffs filed a proof of service showing that defendants were properly served with the complaint, summons, and application, the court must deny the application for lack of jurisdiction.

In addition, plaintiff Matthew Jamison is not an attorney, so he cannot represent his mother, Carol Ann Jamison. While Matthew states that he has a power of attorney to act on his mother’s behalf, the power of attorney does not give him the right to act as her attorney in the case since he is not a licensed attorney.1 He can represent himself in pro per, but he cannot represent his mother. She would need to either retain an attorney or represent herself. Also, since Matthew has not alleged any facts showing that he was personally harmed by the alleged fraud and conversion of the RV, it is not clear that he has standing to bring any claims on his own behalf.

It appears that Carol is the only person with standing to bring a claim for taking the RV, since she is the sole owner of the RV and the only one who was harmed by defendants’ alleged misconduct. Furthermore, it does not appear that plaintiffs have shown that they will suffer irreparable harm sufficient to justify issuing a TRO or preliminary injunction here. Under

1 Matthew also fails to attach a copy of the power of attorney, so he has failed to show that he is

even authorized to sign documents or take other actions on behalf of his mother. In addition, while he claims that his mother suffered a severe stroke that left her with diminished mental capacity, he has not provided any medical records to show that his mother is incapable of representing her own interests. 3

Code of Civil Procedure section 526, subdivision (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. “This court has traditionally held that trial courts should evaluate two interrelated factors when deciding whether or not to issue a preliminary injunction.

The first is the likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits at trial. The second is the interim harm that the plaintiff is likely to sustain if the injunction were denied as compared to the harm that the defendant is likely to suffer if the preliminary injunction were issued. [Citations.]” (IT Corp. v. County of Imperial (1983) 35 Cal.3d 63, 69-70.) “The more likely it is that plaintiffs will ultimately prevail, the less severe must be the harm that they allege will occur if the injunction does not issue.

Further, ‘if the party seeking the injunction can make a sufficiently strong showing of likelihood of success on the merits, the trial court has discretion to issue the injunction notwithstanding that party's inability to show that the balance of harms tips in his favor.’” (Right Site Coalition v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 336, 338-39, citations omitted.) Generally speaking, an injunction will not issue to prevent breach of a contract, or where the plaintiff can be adequately compensated through money damages. (Code Civ.

Proc., § 526; West Coast Construction Co. v. Oceano Sanitary Dist. (1971) 17 Cal.App.3d 693, 700.) Plaintiffs must show that they would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not issued, and that money damages would not adequately compensate them for their injuries. “The concept of ‘irreparable injury’ which authorizes the interposition of a court of equity by way of injunction does not concern itself entirely with injury beyond the possibility of repair or beyond possible compensation in damages.

Rather, by definition, an injunction properly issues in any case where ‘it would be extremely difficult to ascertain the amount of compensation which would afford adequate relief.’ (Civ. Code, § 3422.)” (Wind v. Herbert (1960) 186 Cal.App.2d 276, 285, citation omitted.) Also, a party is not entitled to an injunction in a case where he has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. (Richards v. Kirkpatrick (1879) 53 Cal 433.) 4

Where party has an adequate remedy at law he may not resort to court of equity for injunctive relief. (North Side Property Owners' Assn. v. Hillside Memorial Park (1945, Cal App) 70 Cal App 2d 609.) Here, the only harm that plaintiffs are seeking to prevent is the loss of the subject RV at a sale or auction. Plaintiffs claim that defendants took the RV through fraud, undue influence, and financial elder abuse, as they took advantage of Carol’s diminished mental capacity to persuade her to sell them the RV for less than it is worth, and then failed to pay her as promised.

Yet such allegations do not show that plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm, as it appears that plaintiffs can be adequately compensated for the loss of the RV through money damages. In other words, plaintiffs have a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law, as they can calculate their damages based on the value of the RV. Plaintiffs have not alleged any facts showing that the RV is so unique or valuable that money damages would not be adequate to compensate them for its loss. Also, it appears that plaintiffs are alleging that defendants breached the contract with Carol by failing to pay her for the RV.

Injunctions will not issue to prevent a breach of contract, or where money damages will adequately compensate the plaintiffs for their loss. (Code Civ. Proc., § 526; West Coast Construction Co. v. Oceano Sanitary Dist., supra, 17 Cal.App.3d at p. 700.) Therefore, the court intends to deny the application for a temporary restraining order.

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.

Tentative Ruling

Issued By: KCK on 06/29/26. (Judge’s initials) (Date)

5