Motion for Preliminary Injunction
CASE NUMBER: 26CV-0210292 Tentative Ruling Motion for Preliminary Injunction: Plaintiffs Ronald and Tove Kuns move for a preliminary injunction against Defendants Linda Estes-King, Mark Teal, and The Roles Company, Inc. pending trial and entry of final judgment in this action. Specifically, Plaintiffs seek to enjoin Defendant from interfering with Plaintiffs’ use of a roadway and bridge and to require Defendants to unlock a gate which currently obstructs passage over what Plaintiffs refer to as the “Prescriptive Area” as detailed in the Verified Complaint.
Merits: California Code of Civil Procedure section 526(a) provides an injunction may be granted, inter alia, 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, or 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. In considering whether to issue a preliminary injunction, a court evaluates two interrelated factors: the likelihood plaintiff will prevail on the merits at trial and the interim harm to plaintiff or defendant if the court denies or grants the preliminary injunction. (Continental Baking Co. v. Katz (1968) 68 Cal.2d 512, 528.) 5
Plaintiff carries the burden of proof and persuasion on these issues. (O'Connell v. Superior Court (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1452, 1481.) Drakes Bay Oyster Co. v. California Coastal Com. (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 1165, 1171–72.
Plaintiff has the burden to establish a reasonable probability that Plaintiff will prevail on the merits at trial. Robbins v. Superior Court (1985) 38 Cal.3d 199, 206. Here, Plaintiff seeks 1) to quiet title for a prescriptive easement; 2) declaratory relief that Plaintiffs possess a prescriptive easement; 3) injunctive relief for access to the prescriptive easement; and 4) for damages for interference with their prescriptive easement.
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?”
To prevail on the merits, each of Plaintiffs’ causes of action require the Court to find a prescriptive easement in favor of Plaintiffs over the Defendants’ property. To establish a prescriptive easement over real property under California law, a claimant must prove that their use of the subject property has been: (1) open and notorious; (2) continuous and uninterrupted; (3) hostile and adverse to the true owner; (4) under a claim of right; and (5) maintained for the statutory period of five years. Twin Peaks Land Co. v. Briggs, 130 Cal. App. 3d 587, Windsor Pacific LLC v. Samwood Co., Inc., 213 Cal. App. 4th 263, Main Street Plaza v. Cartwright & Main, LLC, 194 Cal. App. 4th 1044.
Plaintiff has met its burden to establish a reasonable probability of prevailing at trial on the merits by alleging each of the five elements required to establish a prescriptive easement in a Verified Complaint. Defendant has not opposed the motion or offered any contradictory evidence.
Next, Plaintiff has the burden to show that the interim harm that the Plaintiff is likely to sustain if the injunction were denied is greater than the harm that the Defendant is likely to suffer if the preliminary injunction were issued. Here again, Defendant has not opposed the Motion. The only evidence of harm before the Court is Plaintiff’s verified allegation that the locked gate has prevented Plaintiff from transporting and managing cattle and other livestock on their property, as they (or their predecessors in interest) have done for at least the last five years. The Court finds the equities favor maintaining the status quo until the matter can be resolved through full litigation of the merits.
Undertaking: CCP § 529(a) provides that if the Court grants the injunction, it must require an undertaking. Plaintiff suggests a nominal $1 undertaking. “On granting an injunction, the court or judge must require an undertaking on the part of the applicant to the effect that the applicant will pay to the party enjoined any damages, not exceeding an amount to be specified, the party may sustain by reason of the injunction, if the court finally decides that the applicant was not entitled to the injunction. Within five days after the service of the injunction, the person enjoined may object to the undertaking. If the court determines that the applicant’s undertaking is insufficient and a sufficient undertaking is not filed within the time required by statute, the order granting the injunction must be dissolved.”
The trial court fixes the amount of the undertaking based on its sound discretion, and its estimate must be grounded in reason. ABBA Rubber Co. v. Seaquist (1991) 235 Cal. App. 3d 1, Oiye v. Fox (2012) 211 Cal. App. 4th 1036. An enjoined party must make an evidentiary showing of its likely damages. Id. If the enjoined party fails to present evidence of potential damages in the event the injunction is determined to have been wrongfully issued, the court does not abuse its discretion by setting a nominal bond amount, such as $1,000. Id. However, nominal bonds that are completely untethered to potential damages when evidence of harm exists do not satisfy the statutory 6
Here, Defendant has not opposed the Motion and has presented no evidence of likely damages. Absent a showing of likely damages at the hearing, the Court intends to impose an undertaking of $1,000 in order to satisfy the statutory requirement.
The Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED. Defendant is immediately enjoined from interfering with Plaintiff’s use of the “Prescriptive Area” during the pendency of this action. Plaintiff is required to post an undertaking of $1,000.00. The proposed order will be modified.
IN RE LIGHTSEY