DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
S-CV-0056734·placer·Civil·Real Property
Hearing in about 3 hoursDENIED

TAYLOR INVESTMENTS v. LAGERQUIST, REID

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Taylor Investments, LLC’s Motion to Dissolve or Modify Injunction Pursuant to C.C.P. § 533

Hearing date
Aug 20, 2026
Department
3
Prevailing
Opposing Party

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffTAYLOR INVESTMENTS, LLC
DefendantREID LAGERQUIST

Attorneys

Denys Panibratsfor Plaintiff

Ruling

PLACER COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT THURSDAY, CIVIL LAW AND MOTION DEPARTMENT 3 THE HONORABLE MICHAEL W. JONES TENTATIVE RULINGS FOR AUGUST 20 2026, AT 8:30 A.M.

8. S-CV-0056734 TAYLOR INVESTMENTS v. LAGERQUIST, REID

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Taylor Investments, LLC’s Motion to Dissolve or Modify Injunction Pursuant to C.C.P. § 533

Preliminary Matters

Defendant’s objection to paragraph 6 of Denys Panibrats’s declaration is sustained. The remainder of the objections are overruled.

Plaintiff’s requests for judicial notice of the existence of the grant easement and PG&E Rule No. 16 are granted.

Ruling on Motion

Plaintiff moves for the court to modify or dissolve the injunction granted on March 18, 2026.

Code of Civil Procedure section 533 provides In any action, the court may on notice modify or dissolve an injunction or temporary restraining order upon a showing that there has been a material change in the facts upon which the injunction or temporary restraining order was granted, that the law upon which the injunction or temporary restraining order was granted has changed, or that the ends of justice would be served by the modification or dissolution of the injunction or temporary restraining order. (Code Civ. Proc., § 533.)

There have not been any material changes in the facts or law since the injunction was granted. Nor would the ends of justice be served from dissolving or modifying the injunction. A dissolution or modification to the injunction would disrupt the status quo and contravene the language of the recorded easement.

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion is denied without prejudice.

///

PLACER SUPERIOR COURT – DEPARTMENT 3 Thursday Civil Law and Motion – Tentative Rulings

Cited authorities

Extracting citations 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

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share