DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25CV-04746·merced·Civil·Civil
Hearing todayDENIED

Sikh Gurdwara of Los Banos vs. Surjit Singh, et al

Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Hearing date
Aug 25, 2026
Department
12
Prevailing
Opposing Party

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffSikh Gurdwara of Los Banos
DefendantSurjit Singh

Ruling

25CV-04746 Sikh Gurdwara of Los Banos vs. Surjit Singh, et al

Motion Defendant Surjit Singh's Notice of Motion and Motion for Preliminary Injunction

The motion for preliminary injunction is DENIED.

Cross-Defendant’s objection to the reply declarations submitted in support of the motion for preliminary injunction is SUSTAINED.

This court previously stated a judge should generally avoid issuing a preliminary injunction that does not maintain the status quo of the litigation until a trial on the merits. Granting the preliminary injunction would materially change the positions of the parties and would not maintain the status quo.

Further, Defendant still has not shown a probability of success. The evidence in this matter is disputed. The fact that additional evidence continues to be presented underscores the court’s finding that the evidentiary record is not sufficiently developed at this stage of litigation for the court to make a determination as to probability of either party prevailing on the merits.

As before, the moving party is free to circulate the court's order to any members of the church who are allegedly being mislead so that everyone will know that the final determination of that dispute will be decided by the court following a trial on the merits.

Accordingly, the motion is denied.

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