| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Notice Of Motion And Motion To Freeze The Use Of Plaintiff'S Social Equity Status On Any Cannabis Permit, Imposing Terminating Sanctions Against Defendants For Extrinsic Fraud And Interntionally Spoilations Of Tax Documents
Set for Law and Motion/Discovery Calendar on Friday, March 20, 2026, Line 4. 2 - Plaintiff Rodney Hampton, Jr.'s Motion To Freeze The Use Of Plaintiff's Social Equity Status On Any Cannabis Permit, Imposing Terminating Sanctions Against Defendants For Extrinsic Fraud And Intentional Spoilation Of Tax Documents
This is Plaintiff's sixth frivolous motion in less than three months. "A superior court must evaluate two interrelated factors when ruling on a request for a preliminary injunction: (1) the likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits at trial and (2) the interim harm that the plaintiff would be likely to sustain if the injunction were denied as compared to the harm the defendant would be likely to suffer if the preliminary injunction were issued." (Smith v. Adventist Health System/West (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 729, 749.)
With respect to the merits, Plaintiff does not meaningfully analyze the elements of any asserted claim or explain how the evidence establishes a reasonable probability of prevailing on any claim. The moving papers are notably silent as to how Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. The Court cannot simply presume merit; it must be demonstrated, which hasn't happened here.
Nor has Plaintiff established imminent or irreparable interim harm. On this record, the asserted harm is speculative and unsupported. There are myriad other issues with Plaintiff's motion but the court will end its analysis here. Because Plaintiff has not demonstrated a reasonable probability of success on the merits or a likelihood of imminent interim harm, injunctive relief is not warranted. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion is denied.
Prior to the hearing, Defendants shall lodge by email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org a proposed order repeating the above verbatim.
For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 302 Zoom ID 160 409 7690; Passcode 516287.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.
Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.
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 no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include