| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Date |
|---|
OSC re: Preliminary Injunction
12. 26CV00535 Pruitt, Lindsay Samantha
EVENT: Change of name (adult)
There is no proof of publication on file. Upon the filing of the proof of publication the Court will sign the decree provided.
13. 26CV00540 In re: Pendergast, Jody Lee
EVENT: Change of name (adult)
The Court is in receipt of the proof of publication and will sign the decree provided.
14. 26CV01138 Butte County Animal Control v. Christine Dolz
EVENT: Petition to Determine if Dog is Vicious
The Court will conduct a hearing.
15. 26CV01139 Butte County Animal Control v. Christine Dolz
EVENT: Petition to Determine if Dog is Vicious
The Court will conduct a hearing.
16. 26CV01143 Cool Time LLC et al v. Power, Stacie Lynn et al
EVENT: OSC re: Preliminary Injunction
OSC re: Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED in PART. With respect to the roughly $250k + in funds being withheld pursuant to the cancellation clause in the contract, the Court previously denied Plaintiffs’ request. A preliminary mandatory injunction is rarely granted. (Shoemaker v. County of Los Angeles (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 618, 626) The granting of a mandatory injunction pending trial is not permitted except in extreme cases where the right thereto is clearly established. (Id)
5|Page
Plaintiffs have failed to meet this exceedingly high bar in attempting to demonstrate that Defendants were terminated for cause and therefore Plaintiffs are entitled to a mandatory injunction in the form of an order requiring the transfer of disputed funds. The motion is thus denied on that issue. However, regarding Plaintiffs’ ability to resume operations of the business and related accounting issues, Plaintiffs are likely to succeed. There is nothing in the contract allowing Defendants to prevent Plaintiffs from resuming control of business operations after the contract has been terminated. Defendants’ remedy for breach is the cancellation fee, which they are currently holding. Thus, there is no legal basis to preclude Plaintiffs from resuming operations. With that in mind, the Court is granting the motion with respect to requested relief nos. 2- 6 on page 15 of Plaintiffs’ points and authorities.: 2. Stop Further Intake. Defendants shall immediately disable all rent-payment portals, payment links, subsidy intake channels, and any other means of receiving Plaintiffs’ rents or revenues.
Extracted by Gemini Flash from the ruling text. Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.
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?”
Powered by Gemini Flash Lite. Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.
3. Weekly Transfer of New Funds. Any Plaintiffs’ funds received after entry of the order shall be wire transferred to Plaintiffs by 5:00 p.m. each Friday, with notice of the source and amount.
4. Restore Access. Defendants shall restore Plaintiffs read-only access to relevant AppFolio records, ledgers, payment histories, tenant accounts, and related data within 24 hours.
5. Disclose Urgent Obligations. Defendants shall identify all unpaid bills, cancellation notices, shutoff notices, defaults, or other urgent obligations affecting the portfolio within 24 hours.
6. Reconciliation. Defendants shall provide complete reconciliations for January, February, March, and April 2026, including all receipts, disbursements, transfers, fees, and balances by end of business close of April 30, 2026. Plaintiffs shall prepare and submit a form of order within two weeks.
6|Page