BROOKER vs BROVKO, et al.

25CV010674: BROOKER vs BROVKO, et al. 07/31/2025 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Department 54

Tentative Ruling

Pro per Plaintiff Karen Brooker’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for preliminary injunction is ruled upon as follows.

I. Overview

This action arises from defendants Maryna and Pavol Brovko’s (collectively, “Defendants”) termination of Plaintiff’s lease at 6503 Hillsdale Blvd, Sacramento (“Property”). Plaintiff alleges Defendants purchased the Property, and that in November 2024, Defendants served her with a 60-day no-fault eviction, indicating that family members would occupy the unit. Plaintiff alleges that no qualifying members moved in within the legally required 90-day period, and the Property remained vacant, under construction, and uninhabitable.

Plaintiff filed her initial complaint on May 1, 2025 and her first amended complaint (“FAC”) on June 10, 2025.

The FAC asserts causes of action for: (1) violation of Civil Code section 1946.2, (2) wrongful eviction, (3) fraud and intentional misrepresentation, and (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Plaintiff seeks the following preliminary injunction:

defendants, and each of them, and their officers, agents, employees, representatives, and all persons acting in concert or participating with them, are enjoined and restrained from engaging in, committing, or performing, directly or indirectly, by any means whatsoever, any of the following acts:

Occupying, leasing, renting, or offering for rent the residential property located at 6503 Hillsdale Blvd, Sacramento, CA 95842. Also [sic] Renovating, modifying, or making any material alterations to the interior or exterior of the property and taking any action to interfere with Plaintiff’s potential re-rental rights under California Civil Code § 1946.2(c) or § 1946.2(b)(2)(D) and reimbursement for relocation cost.

(Proposed Preliminary Injunction.)

25CV010674: BROOKER vs BROVKO, et al. 07/31/2025 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Department 54

II. Legal Standard

“As its name suggests, a preliminary injunction is an order that is sought by a plaintiff prior to a full adjudication of the merits of its claim[s]. [Citation.]” (White v. Davis (2003) 30 Cal.4th 528, 554.) “The purpose of such an order ‘is to preserve the status quo . . . . It ‘does not constitute a final adjudication of the controversy.’ [Citation.]” (Costa Mesa City Employees Assn v. City of Costa Mesa (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 298, 305.)

“To obtain a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff ordinarily is required to present evidence of the irreparable injury or interim harm that it will suffer if an injunction is not issued pending an adjudication of the merits. (White, supra, 30 Cal.4th at 554 [emphasis added]; see generally Code Civ. Proc. § 426, subd. (a)(2) [a preliminary injunction “may be granted . . . when it appears . . . that the commission or continuance of some act during the litigation would produce. . . great or irreparable injury . . . to a party to the action. . . .].)

“‘[T]he extraordinary remedy of injunction’ cannot be invoked without showing the likelihood of irreparable harm. [Citation.]” (Intel Corp. v. Hamidi (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1342, 1352.) The threat of “irreparable harm” must be imminent. “An injunction cannot issue in a vacuum based on the proponents’ fears about something that may happen in the future. It must be supported by actual evidence that there is a realistic prospect that the party enjoined intends to engage in the prohibited activity.” (Korean Philadelphia Presbyterian Church v. California Presbytery (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1069, 1084.) The showing must be strong enough to “support the exercise of the rather extraordinary power to restrain the defendant’s actions prior to a trial on the merits.” (Tahoe Keys Property Owners’ Ass’n v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1459, 1471.)

“If the threshold requirement of irreparable injury is established, then [the court] must examine two interrelated factors to determine whether . . . a preliminary injunction should be [issued]: ‘(1) the likelihood that the moving party will ultimately prevail on the merits and (2) the relative interim harm to the parties from issuance or non-issuance of the injunction.’ [Citation.]” (Costa Mesa City Employees Assn., supra, 209 Cal.App.4th at 306 [emphasis added].) The greater the showing on one factor, the lesser the showing must be on the other. (Butt v. State of California (1992) 4 Cal.4th 668, 678.) However, a preliminary injunction may not be granted, regardless of the balance of interim harm, unless it is reasonably probable that the moving party will prevail on the merits. (San Francisco Newspaper Printing Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 438, 442.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV010674: BROOKER vs BROVKO, et al. 07/31/2025 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Department 54

However, injunctions of any kind will rarely be granted where a suit for damages provides a clear remedy. (Thayer Plymouth Center, Inc. v. Chrysler Motors (1967) 255 Cal.App.2d 300, 307; Pacific Decision Sciences Corp v. Superior Court (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1100, 1110.) To obtain a preliminary injunction Plaintiff must demonstrate that monetary damages would not be an adequate remedy for the alleged wrongdoing. (Code Civ. Proc. § 526(a)(4) [injunction may be granted (4) When pecuniary compensation would not afford adequate relief].) “‘[T]here is no right to equitable relief or an equitable remedy when there is an adequate remedy at law.’ (11 Witkin, Summary of Cal.

Law (9th ed. 1990) Equity, § 3, p. 681 italics in original); Brownfield v. Daniel Freeman Marina Hospital (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 405, 410 [256 Cal.Rptr. 240] [there must be an injury that ‘cannot be compensated by an ordinary damage award’].)” (Estes v. Rowland (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 508, 535.)

The party seeking injunctive relief bears the burden of showing all elements necessary to support issuance of a preliminary injunction. (O'Connell v. Super. Ct. (2006) 141 Cal. App. 4th 1452, 1481.)

III.

Analysis

The Court finds that Plaintiff fails to clearly establish her right to the requested injunction. Plaintiff fails to show imminent irreparable harm because it is undisputed that Plaintiff no longer resides at the Property. Additionally, Plaintiff fails to show that monetary damages are an inadequate remedy at law. Plaintiff submits her declaration in which she states:

16. I have experienced financial hardship as a result of the eviction. Since January 2025, I have had to stay in a motel, paying approximately $620 per week, with total costs now exceeding $10,000. I also paid for storage and relocation through PODS and relied on credit cards and a personal line of credit, resulting in interest charges and a decline in my credit score. My attorney submitted a written request to the Defendants seeking reimbursement of $4,585.00 for documented moving- related expenses. This amount does not include additional out-of-pocket costs for supplies and other necessary items. To date, I have not received a response.

17. In addition to the financial losses I have suffered, the circumstances surrounding this eviction have caused significant emotional and physical distress. I am the primary caregiver for my dog, Petey, who was diagnosed with osteosarcoma and underwent a limb amputation. Due to the intensive care his condition requires [sic], I have been limited to part-time employment. Both of my

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV010674: BROOKER vs BROVKO, et al. 07/31/2025 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Department 54

dogs are integral to my emotional support system, and the instability of my current housing situation has compounded the hardship of managing a serious medical condition for a dependent animal. The ongoing displacement has placed extraordinary strain on my well-being.

(Declaration of Karen Brooker, ¶¶ 16-17.)

The Court understands Plaintiff’s situation, and that Plaintiff may consider her damages to be irreparable. The above facts, however, show that monetary damages are an adequate remedy for Plaintiff’s claims, including her claim for emotional distress. (See e.g. Corenbaum v. Lampkin (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1332 [“[n]oneconomic damages compensate an injured plaintiff for nonpecuniary injuries, including pain and suffering. Pain and suffering is a unitary concept that encompasses physical pain and various forms of mental anguish and emotional distress.”].)

As the threshold requirement of irreparable injury has not been established, the Court need not examine the two factors for the imposition of a preliminary injunction.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction is DENIED.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV010674: BROOKER vs BROVKO, et al. 07/31/2025 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Department 54

to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.pdf.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.