Motion for Preliminary Injunction
25CV133249: SHIN, et al. vs STONERIDGE PROPERTIES LLC, et al. 07/29/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by ERIC SHIN (Plaintiff) CRS# 101978743425 in Department 19
Tentative Ruling - 07/28/2026 Joscelyn Jones
The Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by ERIC SHIN on 03/06/2026 is Denied.
Plaintiffs Renewed Motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED.
As a preliminary matter, in ruling on this motion the Court did not consider the supplemental declaration of Eric Shen submitted with the reply papers, consisting of an 11 page declaration with five exhibits. As the Court already specifically advised Plaintiffs in the February 9, 2026 order denying Plaintiffs prior motion for preliminary injunction, the Court normally does not consider new evidence submitted for the first time with the reply papers because Defendants have not had the opportunity to respond to that evidence in the opposition brief. (See, e.g., Jay v. Mahaffey (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1537-1538.) There is no reason to make an exception here, particularly after Plaintiffs were already advised that the Court would not consider new evidence submitted for the first time with the reply papers.
Defendants oppose this motion, in part, on the grounds that it is procedurally improper because it is not based on any new facts, circumstances, or law that could not have been presented in support of Plaintiffs prior motion for summary adjudication. (See Code of Civil Procedure § 1008(b) and Even Zohar Construction and Remodeling Inc. v. Bellaire Townhouses LLC (2015) 61 Cal.4th 830, 833.) Defendants point is valid. However, because Plaintiffs prior motion was denied without prejudice, the Court will consider this motion on its merits, despite the procedural inadequacy under § 1008(b).
Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction enjoining Defendants from (1) terminating the lease based on the disputed Required Completion Date (RCD); (2) declaring or enforcing a default based upon the disputed RCD, or (3) initiating or pursuing any lockout, forfeiture, or reletting of the Premises based on the disputed RCD.
Neither the Notice of Motion nor the proposed order submitted with the moving papers reference a specific Notice of Default that Plaintiffs seek to be declared invalid. In ruling on this motion, the Court takes no position on whether the Notice of Default issued by Defendants on April 7, 2025 is valid. The Court also observes that the April 7, 2025 Notice of Default indicates that Plaintiffs were delinquent in rental payments in the amount of $38,289.70, but nowhere in the Notice of Default did it indicate the RCD on which the default was based.
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?”
The Court will not issue an advisory opinion resolving the disputed RCD, because there does not appear to be any Notice of Default identifying an RCD, let alone any pending unlawful action seeking to dispossess Plaintiffs of the leased premises based on a purported default. Moreover, if Defendants do issue a Notice of Default in the future that identifies a RCD that Plaintiffs disputes, Plaintiffs have not shown how they would be irreparably harmed by the mere 25CV133249: SHIN, et al. vs STONERIDGE PROPERTIES LLC, et al. 07/29/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by ERIC SHIN (Plaintiff) CRS# 101978743425 in Department 19 issuance of a Notice of Default.
Plaintiffs could perhaps be irreparably harmed if they were to lose possession of the leased premises, but that would require Defendants to file an unlawful detailer action pursuant to the Notice of Default. Any argument Plaintiffs have as to why they are not in default on the lease could be presented in the unlawful detainer case, should Defendants choose to file one. (See Newby v. Alto Riviera Apartments (1976) 60 Cal.App.3d 288, 302-303.)
The only harm Plaintiffs identify in their motion that would be triggered by a Notice of Default (as opposed to the termination of the lease and an eviction from the premises) is the loss of the lease specific benefits identified on page 14 of Plaintiffs opening brief, specifically a $25,000 rent credit and a $25,000 landlord contribution toward tenants work. Because those harms are purely monetary, they can be fully compensated by monetary damages and are not an appropriate basis for injunctive relief.