Tejinder Sandhu v GK Orchards, LLC

(46) Tentative Ruling

Re: Tejinder Sandhu v GK Orchards, LLC Superior Court Case No. 25CECG03966

Hearing Date: September 9, 2026 (Dept. 501)

Motion: (1) by Cross-Complainants for Preliminary Injunction (2) By Cross-Defendants to Appoint Receiver

Tentative Ruling:

To deny the motion for preliminary injunction. To deny the motion for appointment of a receiver.

Explanation:

Motion for Preliminary Injunction Preserving Disputed Portion of Excess Tax Sale Proceeds

“This court has traditionally held that trial courts should evaluate two interrelated factors when deciding whether or not to issue a preliminary injunction. The first is the likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits at trial. The second is the interim harm that the plaintiff is likely to sustain if the injunction were denied as compared to the harm that the defendant is likely to suffer if the preliminary injunction were issued. [Citations.]” (IT Corp. v. County of Imperial (1983) 35 Cal.3d 63, 69-70.)

Here, cross-complainants do not demonstrate the required elements for a preliminary injunction. They submit that they “do not ask the Court to determine that they will prevail at trial” (Reply, 3:25), and thus the evidence provided is “sufficient” for the narrowed scope of the order sought. (Reply, 4:14.) Cross-complainants offer no authority to support this lessened standard. Cross-complainants still seek a preliminary injunction, thus the elements of a preliminary injunction must be fully addressed before a preliminary injunction may be granted.

Motion for Appointment of Receiver

Code of Civil Procedure section 564, subdivision (b)(1) provides for appointment of a receiver in actions between partners jointly owning in any property or fund when (1) the right to or interest in the property or fund is probable and (2) the property or fund is in danger of being lost, removed, or materially injured. Appointment of a receiver is to be “exercised with caution.” (Cohen v. Herbert (1960) 186 Cal.App.2d 488, 495.) That said, appointment of a receiver is discretionary. (Maggiora v. Palo Alto Inn, Inc. (1967) 249 Cal.App.2d 706, 710.)

Here, the right to or interest in the property is heavily disputed. Cross-defendants seek appointment of a receiver over the entire property on the basis that crosscomplainants have been derelict in the physical and financial maintenance of the

property. However, the evidence provided to support the multitude of claims as to crosscomplainants’ behavior is insufficient to support appointment of a receiver at this time.

Cross-defendants support their claim of unpaid vendors by attaching a judgment and abstract of judgment against GK Orchards. The connection between the judgment and vendor work on the property is assumed, not demonstrated. Cross-complainants’ alleged vandalism has not been evidenced, and cross-complainants similarly accuse cross-defendants of acts of interference. The declaration of Tejinder Pal Sandhu further provides evidence of his property tax payments. This in itself does not demonstrate total taxes owed and paid/unpaid by each party, i.e. whether he is paying his full share or that cross-complainants are not paying at all.

Cross-defendants also include a demand letter for collection of an outstanding PG&E bill. The demand is made as to Tejinder Pal Sandhu only. Mr. Sandhu attests that “defendants refuse to pay any share of that even though they are the ones using the water.” (Sandhu Decl., ¶ 16.) This is not evidence of crosscomplainants failing an obligation, as it appears the debt belongs to Mr. Sandhu and no evidence obliging the cross-complainants to assist in payment is demonstrated.

Appointment of a receiver over the whole property is a drastic remedy. At this time, the court denies the motion to appoint a receiver.

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.

Tentative Ruling

Issued By: KCK on 09/08/26. (Judge’s initials) (Date)

8