BHANDERI, vs COGNITIVE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INC., et al.
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order; Preliminary Injunction; Order to Show Cause
Motion type
Causes of action
Parties
Ruling
26CV197241: BHANDERI, vs COGNITIVE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INC., et al. 08/27/2026 Hearing on Motion for Protective Order filed by Krishna Manojbhai Bhanderi, (Plaintiff) CRS# 241975033833 in Department 517
Tentative Ruling - 08/24/2026 Keith Fong
The Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Krishna Manojbhai Bhanderi, on 07/23/2026 is Denied.
Plaintiff Krishna Manohbhai Bhanderis Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, and Order to Show Cause is DENIED.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Krishna Manohbhai Bhanderi (Plaintiff) initiated this action on July 2, 2026 against Defendants Cognitive Technology Solutions Inc. (CTS) and Surender Bolugoddu (collectively, Defendants) alleging the following causes of action: (1) Failure to Pay Wages Timely; (2) Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses; (3) Failure to Provide Accurate and Itemized Wage Statements; (4) Retaliation In Violation of Labor Code § 98.6; (5) Violation of Business & Professions Code § 17200; (6) Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage; (7) Failure to Provide Personnel File; (8) Failure to Pay Minimum Wages and All Wages Due; (9) Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code § 1102.5; and (10) Negligent Misrepresentation.
Plaintiff moves for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction pursuant to Labor Code § 226 and Code of Civil Procedure sections 526 and 527. Plaintiff seeks a Court order for Defendant to produce (1) all itemized wage statements and pay stubs provided, or required to be provided, to Plaintiff for all pay periods in the 2026 calendar year; and (2) all payroll records in Defendants possession, custody, or control sufficient to reflect the wages paid, dates of payment, rates of pay, deductions, and net wages paid to Plaintiff for all pay periods in the 2026 calendar year.
On August 3, 2026, the Court granted Plaintiffs ex parte application to shorten the time for the hearing on Plaintiffs motion. The Court further set a briefing schedule and directed Plaintiff regarding service and notice on Defendants. Despite notice and service pursuant to the Courts 8/3/26 Order, there is no opposition on file from Defendants.
LEGAL STANDARD
When considering a request for a preliminary injunction, the trial court weighs two interrelated factors: (1) the likelihood the party seeking relief will prevail on the merits, and (2) the relative interim harm to the parties if the preliminary injunction is granted or denied. (People v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 266, 283.) The greater the showing on one factor, the less must be shown on the other to support an injunction. (OConnell v. Superior Court (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1452, 1463.)
The court may not grant a preliminary injunction, regardless of the 26CV197241: BHANDERI, vs COGNITIVE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INC., et al. 08/27/2026 Hearing on Motion for Protective Order filed by Krishna Manojbhai Bhanderi, (Plaintiff) CRS# 241975033833 in Department 517 balance of interim harm, unless there is some possibility that plaintiff will ultimately prevail on the merits of the claim. (SB Liberty, LLC v. Isla Verde Assn., Inc. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 272, 280.)
A preliminary injunction that mandates an affirmative act that changes the status quo is scrutinized closely for abuse of discretion. (Shoemaker v. County of Los Angeles (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 618, 625.)
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff must first establish a possibility that she will ultimately prevail on the merits of her claims at trial. (Doe v. Regents of University of California (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 766, 773.)
Plaintiff alleges (1) Failure to Pay Wages Timely; (2) Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses; (3) Failure to Provide Accurate and Itemized Wage Statements; (4) Retaliation In Violation of Labor Code § 98.6; (5) Violation of Business & Professions Code § 17200; (6) Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage; (7) Failure to Provide Personnel File; (8) Failure to Pay Minimum Wages and All Wages Due; (9) Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code § 1102.5; and (10) Negligent Misrepresentation.
Plaintiff submits her sworn declaration in support of her motion. The declaration reiterates the allegations set forth in the Complaint but does not include any evidentiary support or exhibits. Aside from the Third Cause of Action, the motion does not discuss the claims asserted in the Complaint; set forth the elements of each claim; or establish a likelihood of prevailing on the merits of those claims.
As to the Third Cause of Action for Failure to Provide Accurate and Itemized Wage Statements, Plaintiff states that over the course of her employment, Defendants repeatedly failed to provide her with accurate wage statements and pay stubs, despite her requests beginning from October 2024. (Pltf. Decl. ¶¶ 5-8.) These are conclusory statements and are not supported by any evidentiary facts.
Under Labor Code section 226, subdivision (h), an employee may bring an action for injunctive relief to ensure an employers compliance with section 226. Irreparable harm is not presumed simply because a defendant violates a statute that authorizes injunctive relief. (Oman v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2022) 610 F.Supp.3d 1257, 1279.)
Based on the moving papers, Plaintiff has not established a likelihood that she will prevail on the merits of her claims at trial. While the motion argues that Plaintiff may suffer irreparable harm if the motion is not granted, the motion must be denied because Plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood of prevailing on the merits of her case.
CONCLUSION
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
26CV197241: BHANDERI, vs COGNITIVE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INC., et al. 08/27/2026 Hearing on Motion for Protective Order filed by Krishna Manojbhai Bhanderi, (Plaintiff) CRS# 241975033833 in Department 517
Plaintiff Krishna Manohbhai Bhanderis Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, and Order to Show Cause is DENIED.
HOW DO I CONTEST A TENTATIVE RULING?
THROUGH ECOURT
Notify the Court and all the other parties no later than 4:00 p.m. (but by Noon if possible) at least one (1) court day before the scheduled hearing, and briefly identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps: 1. Log into eCourt Public Portal 2. Case Search 3. Enter the Case Number and select "Search" 4. Select the Case Name 5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab 6. Select "Click to Contest this Ruling" 7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting 8. Select "Proceed"
BY EMAIL Send an email to the DEPARTMENT CLERK and all the other parties no later than 4pm (but by Noon if possible) at least one (1) court day before the scheduled hearing.
BOTH ECOURT AND EMAIL notices are required.
ZOOM LOG-IN INFORMATION FOR DEPARTMENT 517 IS BELOW.
Join ZoomGov Meeting https://www.zoomgov.com/j/16181989812
Meeting ID: 161 8198 9812 One tap mobile +16692545252,,16181989812# US (San Jose) 16692161590,,16181989812# US +(San Jose)
Dial by your location +1 669 254 5252 US (San Jose) +1 669 216 1590 US (San Jose) +1 551 285 1373 US +1 646 828 7666 US (New York) 833 568 8864 US Toll-free
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
26CV197241: BHANDERI, vs COGNITIVE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INC., et al. 08/27/2026 Hearing on Motion for Protective Order filed by Krishna Manojbhai Bhanderi, (Plaintiff) CRS# 241975033833 in Department 517 Meeting ID: 161 8198 9812 Find your local number: https://www.zoomgov.com/u/ad6x1ZH23d
Join by SIP 16181989812@sip.zoomgov.com
Join by H.323 161.199.138.10 (US West) 161.199.136.10 (US East) Meeting ID: 161 8198 9812
Cited authorities
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?”