Unknown v. Unknown

(Stanley Mosk Courthouse: Dept. 400) August 31, 2026 DEPARTMENT 400 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

The Court needs to make a disclosure and provisional recusal. After the time of the most recent hearing on this matter, the Judge's daughter became employed as an attorney by Gordon Rees Scully and Mansukhani. That firm represents a party to this case. The recusal of the Judge in this situation is mandatory. CCP section 170.3.

The Parties and Counsel may waive the disqualification if they choose. If so, the Judge will continue on in this case. If not, it will be reassigned. Counsel should discuss this issue and let the clerk know how they wish to proceed and, if there is an objection, they should not communicate which parties raise the objection. If the Court is requested to remain on the case, the hearing on Monday will be reset for argument at the next available date.

Case Number: 25STCV33912 Hearing Date: August 31, 2026 Dept: 400 MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

The Court tenders the following tentative decision in the matter Jesus Flores v. Eugene la Pietra, Los Angeles County Superior Court case number 25STCV33912, set for hearing on August 31, 2026. Jesus Flores (Plaintiff) moves for an order requiring Eugene la Pietra (Defendant) to provide certain information and preventing the transfer or use of certain property. Defendant has not filed an opposition. The motion is denied without prejudice.

A. Legal Standard

"A trial court may grant a preliminary injunction upon a showing that (1) the party seeking the injunction is likely to prevail on the merits at trial, and (2) the 'i nterim harm ' to that party if an injunction is denied is greater than 'the [interim] harm the [opposing party] is likely to suffer if the . . . injunction is issued.'" (Integrated Dynamic Solutions, Inc. v. VitaVet Labs, Inc. (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 1178, 1183; Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 526, subd. (a).)

Preliminary injunctions may only be granted after the moving party shows there is no adequate remedy at law. (Wilkison v. Wiederkehr (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 822, 832.)

A showing of irreparable harm is a "threshold requirement" to obtain a preliminary injunction. (Costa Mesa City Employees Assn. v. City of Costa Mesa (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 298, 306.)

To show irreparable harm, the moving party must ordinarily show that his injuries cannot be adequately compensated by damages. (Intel Corp. v. Hamidi (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1342, 1352.)