JACOBS, et al. vs MANNAA, et al.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

Tentative Ruling:

Self-represented plaintiffs Adam Jacobs and Ghaida Yacoub’s (“Plaintiffs”) motion for preliminary injunction against Defendants Ashraf Mannaa (“Mannaa”) Mohammed Abu Ali (“Ali”) and Greenlight Auto Sport, Inc. (“Glas”) (collectively “Defendants”) is ruled upon as follows.

The Court first addresses the procedural stature of the case.

Default was entered against Glas on December 15, 2025. Default was entered against Ali on December 23, 2025. As such, Glas and Ali are no longer parties to this action, and the motion for a preliminary injunction against Glas and Ali is thus DENIED.

Mannaa

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV026371: JACOBS, et al. vs MANNAA, et al. 03/23/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Department 28

Plaintiffs allege that on August 22, 2023, Mannaa aggressively confronted Plaintiff Jacobs at his business office at 2701 Cottage Way, Sacramento, violently pounding on the door and issuing a direct threat: 'I will f*** you up.' (Jacobs Decl., ¶ 9; Jacobs Decl., Exh. B (Al Badri Decl.), ¶ 6; Jacobs Decl., Exh. C (Jasim Decl.), ¶ 5.) As a direct result, Plaintiff Jacobs abandoned his office and transitioned to working from home out of fear for his safety. (Jacobs Decl., ¶ 9.)

Plaintiffs state:

On November 29, 2023, at approximately 7:00 p.m., Defendant Mannaa traveled to Plaintiffs' home using the address obtained from Abu Ali. Mannaa arrived while, by his own admission, armed with a firearm and under the influence of narcotics, stating: 'I had my piece [firearm] in the car. I was gonna scare him.' (Jacobs Decl., Exh. C (Jasim Decl.), ¶¶ 8- 9.) Upon arrival, Mannaa banged aggressively on Plaintiffs' doors, frightening Plaintiffs' six-year-old grandchild into screaming and crying. (Decl. of Yacoub, ¶ 4.)

When Plaintiff Yacoub, a senior citizen, opened the garage door, Mannaa issued a direct death threat in Arabic: 'I don't recognize the police, the law, or the government. I am going to kill your son right here in this spot.' (Decl. of Yacoub, ¶ 5.) Plaintiff Jacobs emerged and repeatedly instructed Mannaa to leave. Mannaa refused, then initiated a physical attack, placing Jacobs in a chokehold so severe that Jacobs was 'grasping for air and about to faint.' (Decl. of Yacoub, ¶ 7; Jacobs Decl., ¶ 16.) Plaintiff Jacobs, in reasonable self-defense, used his unloaded firearm as an impact weapon to break the life-threatening chokehold. (Jacobs Decl., ¶ 16.)

(Plaintiffs’ Memorandum, 3:15-27.)

Plaintiffs acknowledge that criminal proceedings followed the November 29, 2023 incident, resulting in a conviction against Plaintiff Jacobs. Plaintiffs further state that approximately one month after the assault, Mannaa made an explicit assassination threat to witness A.J. (Ahmed Jasim): 'If Adam Jacobs doesn't go to prison, I will ask my relatives in the Bay Area who can send gangs to assassinate him at his residence.' (Jacobs Decl., Exh. C (Jasim Decl.), ¶ 10.)

Plaintiffs now seek to enjoin Mannaa from:

a) Contacting, threatening, harassing, stalking, surveilling, or

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV026371: JACOBS, et al. vs MANNAA, et al. 03/23/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Department 28

intimidating Plaintiffs, or any member of Plaintiffs' household, by any means whatsoever, whether directly or through third parties; provided, however, that this prohibition shall not preclude service of process or written litigation communications strictly limited to this action and containing no threats, harassment, or personal attacks;

b) Coming within 100 yards of Plaintiffs' residence at 2612 Gunn Road, Carmichael, California 95608, Plaintiffs' places of employment, or Plaintiffs' vehicles;

c) Possessing, using, or disseminating any personal identifying information of Plaintiffs, including but not limited to driver's license images or residential addresses, except to the minimum extent required for legitimate participation in this lawsuit and only through lawful channels.

(Motion, 2:4-14.)

Legal Standards for Preliminary Injunction

Code of Civil Procedure §526 provides in pertinent part:

(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.

Additionally, “the issuance of an injunction involves ‘...the exercise of a delicate power, requiring

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV026371: JACOBS, et al. vs MANNAA, et al. 03/23/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Department 28

great caution and sound discretion, and rarely, if ever, should [it] be exercised in a doubtful case. [Citations.]’” (Paiva v. Nichols (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1007, 1021-1022 (citing Fleishman v. Sup. Court (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 350, 355-356).) Among the factors to be considered when injunctive relief is sought is whether the moving party will, absent such relief, suffer great or irreparable harm for which pecuniary compensation would not afford adequate relief or where it would be extremely difficult to ascertain the amount of compensation which would afford adequate relief. (See, e.g., Code Civ. Proc. §526(a)(2), (4), (5); Jessen v. Keystone Sav. & Loan (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 454, 457.)

Additionally, “[i]njunctive relief is appropriate only when there is a threat of continuing misconduct.” (Madrid v. Perot Systems Corp. (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 440, 463, 30 Cal. Rptr. 3d 210.) “[T]he general rule is that an injunction may not issue unless the alleged misconduct is ongoing or likely to recur. . . . 'Injunctive relief has no application to wrongs which have been completed [citation], absent a showing that past violations will probably recur. [Citation.]' (People v. Toomey [(1984)] 157 Cal.App.3d 20, 203 Cal. Rptr. 642.)” (Madrid v. Perot Systems Corp., supra, 130 Cal.App.4th at pp. 464-465.)

With these standards in mind, the Court will now consider the merits of the present motion by Plaintiffs for a preliminary injunction against Mannaa.

Discussion

Plaintiffs argue that they did not delay in seeking injunctive relief. Plaintiffs argue that the November 29, 2023 assault incident gave rise to criminal proceedings against Plaintiff Jacobs which occupied the period from approximately December 2023 through mid-2025, and that during that time Plaintiffs were focused on the criminal case. Plaintiffs argue that they filed the verified Complaint in this action on November 3, 2025, promptly after the criminal proceedings concluded, and filed this Motion as soon as practicable thereafter.

Plaintiffs further argue that the conduct is not historical, but rather is ongoing. In support of this argument they assert that “[t]he assassination threat has never been retracted. (Jacobs Decl., ¶ 18.) Mannaa's threat was explicitly conditional—'If Adam Jacobs doesn't go to prison'—and the condition has been satisfied, making the threat more, not less, urgent today. The continuing nature of the threatened harm distinguishes this case from one involving stale or isolated events.” (Plaintiffs’ Memorandum, 5:9-14.)

Plaintiffs further argue, “Without injunctive relief, Defendants are free to: (a) continue threatening, harassing, and stalking Plaintiffs; (b) further disseminate Plaintiffs' PII; (c) send additional third parties to Plaintiffs' home; and (d) execute the assassination threat. Any of these acts would render the ultimate judgment in this case ineffectual.” (Plaintiffs’ Memorandum, 9:16- 19.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV026371: JACOBS, et al. vs MANNAA, et al. 03/23/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Department 28

The Court rejects these arguments. Plaintiffs do not allege any act taken by Mannaa since 2023. The purported fact that Mannaa has not “retracted” the threats he made in 2023 not does turn his alleged violent acts from 2023 into continuing conduct. The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ evidence fails to demonstrate that either past violations are likely to reoccur or that future irreparable harm is likely absent the injunction sought by Plaintiffs.

Because the Court finds Plaintiffs’ evidence insufficient to show a continued threat by Mannaa, Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction against Mannaa is DENIED.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)