Defendant's Motion to Dissolve Preliminary Injunction
governing Plaintiff's claims against KBS and Saechao. Amazon's Joinder is GRANTED.
c) GRANTED. Because the Court is granting the Motion to Compel Arbitration, a stay of this action is required pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.4. Section 1281.4 provides that when a court orders arbitration of a controversy that is an issue involved in a pending action, the court shall stay the action until arbitration is completed. The stay is mandatory. (Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 188, 192.)
The Court finds that all claims asserted in the Complaint are subject to arbitration and that no useful purpose would be served by permitting the litigation to proceed simultaneously with arbitration. Accordingly, the action is stayed in its entirety pending completion of arbitration and issuance of an arbitration award. The August 3, 2026 Case Management Conference is vacated and a Case Status Review is set for December 3, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. The Court expects progress to be made by that time.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Stacy P. Speiller in Department 22:
CV-23-005137 - UPPER QUINTO LAND & CATTLE COMPANY LLC vs ROMERO RANCH LLC - Defendant's Motion to Dissolve Preliminary Injunction - DENIED.
On June 11, 2026, Defendant submitted a motion to dissolve preliminary injunction. Plaintiff opposed and Defendant replied. Plaintiff is a hunting and fishing organization comprised of individual members. At least three of Plaintiff's properties are surrounded by Defendant's property and thus Plaintiff's members must travel across Defendant's property to reach Plaintiff's properties. Previously, Plaintiff moved for a preliminary injunction to enjoin Defendant from blocking Plaintiff and its members from traveling over Defendant's property to access Plaintiff's properties. The Court granted the injunction with conditions.
Now, Defendant moves to dissolve the preliminary injunction based on two alleged incidents. First, an individual who is also a member of Plaintiff's organization traveled over Defendant's property to reach his own private real property. Second, unidentified individuals trespassed and allegedly committed acts of vandalism.
"In any action, the court may on notice modify or dissolve an injunction or temporary restraining order upon a showing that there has been a material change in the facts upon which the injunction or temporary restraining order was granted, that the law upon which the injunction or temporary restraining order was granted has changed, or that the ends of justice would be served by the modification or dissolution of the injunction or temporary restraining order." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 533.)
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Here, Defendant has not satisfied any of the requirements for dissolving the preliminary injunction. Defendant seeks to prevent a private individual from accessing his own private land. Even though such individual also happens to be a member of Plaintiff's hunting and fishing organization, such an act does not amount to a material change in fact or law. Nor does it establish that the ends of justice would be served by dissolving the injunction because the alleged incidents are divorced from the purpose of the injunction. The requested relief does not flow from the alleged incidents. Defendant's cursory request for contempt in reply is not properly before the Court. In any event, the Court is unconvinced a motion for contempt would be successful on the facts presented to date. Accordingly, Defendant's motion to dissolve preliminary injunction is DENIED.
CV-25-009644 - WELLS FARGO BANK NA vs VASQUEZ, JUAN P - Plaintiff's Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted and of Nonappearance - GRANTED, and unopposed.
On May 28, 2026, Plaintiff submitted a motion to deem requests for admissions admitted and for nonappearance. Plaintiff's notice of motion states that Plaintiff submits the motion on the moving papers pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1304(c) and will not appear at the hearing in open court. The motion is unopposed.