SHIVELY vs PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.,, et al.

25CV025289: SHIVELY vs PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.,, et al. 02/10/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Department 54

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Jasmine Shively’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED as follows.

Factual & Procedural Background

This action concerns the insurance proceeds arising out of a collision loss to a 2021 Ford F-350 truck (the “Vehicle”) insured by Defendant/Cross-Complainant United Financial Casualty Company, erroneously sued as Progressive Insurance Company (“UFCC”).

Plaintiff, in pro per, filed the Complaint in this action on October 20, 2025, and the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on November 25, 2025. Plaintiff alleges that she and Defendant Caleb Bomar (“Bomar”) executed a written agreement on August 28, 2024 concerning the Vehicle. At the time of the agreement, Plaintiff alleges the Vehicle was registered and financed by Bomar, but Plaintiff and Bomar agreed that Plaintiff would become the primary operator and party responsible for making the payments on the outstanding loan balance until the loan was paid in full. At that time, Plaintiff alleges she and Bomar agreed that Bomar would sign registered ownership of the Vehicle to Plaintiff. Since August 28, 2024, Plaintiff alleges Bomar has not operated, accessed, controlled, or contributed to the Vehicle in any capacity.

On October 4, 2025, the Vehicle was involved in a collision in Sacramento County and deemed a total loss. Plaintiff alleges that on October 20, 2025, UFCC issued a valuation for the Vehicle in the amount of $44,334.65, first to be paid to the lienholder, Chase Auto Finance, with the remaining proceeds to be paid to Bomar as the Vehicle’s registered owner. Plaintiff and Bomar both claim entitlement (at least partial) to the remaining insurance funds.

The FAC alleges causes of action for declaratory relief, constructive trust/unjust enrichment, injunctive relief, and negligence. In essence, Plaintiff seeks a determination that she is the rightful owner of the Vehicle and the remaining insurance proceeds.

On November 18, 2025, Plaintiff filed an ex parte application “for a court order restraining [UFCC and Bomar] from releasing, transferring, withholding, or diverting the

25CV025289: SHIVELY vs PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.,, et al. 02/10/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Department 54

settlement funds arising from the total-loss claim for the [Vehicle], and directing that the settlement funds be released only to the lienholder and to Plaintiff.” (Ex Parte Appl. 1:22-25.) In the alternative, Plaintiff requested the issuance of an Order to Show Cause regarding a preliminary injunction (“OSC”) be scheduled on shortened time. (Id. at 1:25- 2:2.)

On November 20, 2025, the Court denied Plaintiff’s request for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) but scheduled an advanced hearing for the OSC on February 10, 2026. The November 20th order stated that Defendants shall file and serve any written opposition pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 527[1] and Local Rules. (Order, Nov. 20, 2025, at p. 2.)

Bomar, in pro per, filed an Answer to the FAC on January 14, 2026. On February 4, 2026, UFCC filed an Answer to the FAC and Verified Cross-Complaint in Interpleader.

Discussion

On January 14, 2026, Plaintiff filed moving papers in connection with the OSC. In the Notice of Motion/Motion, Plaintiff states that she is moving for both prohibitory and mandatory relief, as follows:

1. Prohibitory Relief – An order enjoining Defendants, their agents, employees, adjusters, and representatives from releasing, transferring, distributing, withholding, or otherwise disbursing any portion of the insurance settlement funds arising from the total loss of the 2021 Ford F?350, except as expressly ordered by this Court.

2. Mandatory Relief – An order requiring [UFCC] to: (a) Issue payment directly to Chase Auto Finance, the lienholder, for satisfaction of the outstanding loan balance; and (b) Release all remaining proceeds directly to Plaintiff, and not to Defendant Caleb Bomar, during the pendency of this action.

(Pl.’s Not. & Mot. for Prelim. Inj. 1:22-2:7.) Plaintiff makes the motion on the grounds that she is likely to prevail on the merits “because she is the equitable and beneficial

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV025289: SHIVELY vs PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.,, et al. 02/10/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Department 54

owner of the [Vehicle], having made all payments on the [V]ehicle and having been solely responsible for the loan pursuant to [the August 28, 2024 agreement],” and “Plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm if the insurance settlement funds are released to [Bomar] or otherwise diverted.” (Id. at 2:14-24.) Plaintiff also argues that “the balance of hardships strongly favors Plaintiff because the requested injunction preserves the status quo and prevents the improper distribution of disputed funds.” (Id. at 2:25-3:2.)

On February 4, 2026, UFCC filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion with a supporting declaration. UFCC argues, inter alia, that the motion should be denied as moot since UFCC “who is faced with competing claims to the remaining sum of available policy benefits has filed a cross-complaint against [P]laintiff and Mr. Bomar for interpleader.” (Opp’n 2:18-21.) UFCC states that as soon as it pays the lienholder, “it will deposit the remaining funds with the Court[,]” and “Plaintiff and Mr. Bomar can then litigate who should get what from those funds.” (Id. at 2:21-24; see also Decl. of Patrick Howe ISO Opp’n ¶ 5.)

“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. [Citation.]” (White v. Davis (2003) 30 Cal.4th 528, 554.) “The purpose of such an order ‘is to preserve the status quo until a final determination following a trial.’ [Citation.] It ‘does not constitute a final adjudication of the controversy.’ [Citation.]” (Costa Mesa City Employees Ass’n 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. [Citation.]” (White, supra, 30 Cal.4th at 554; see generally Code Civ. Proc. § 526, subd. (a)(2) [a preliminary injunction “may be granted . . . [w]hen 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.) Similarly, “if the plaintiff may be fully compensated by the payment of damages in the event he prevails, then preliminary injunctive relief should be denied.” (Tahoe Keys Property Owners’ Ass’n v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1459, 1471 [stating “[t]he showing of potential harm that a plaintiff must make in support of a request for preliminary injunctive relief may be expressed in various linguistic formulations, such as the inadequacy of legal remedies or the threat of

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV025289: SHIVELY vs PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.,, et al. 02/10/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Department 54

irreparable injury [citations], but whatever the choice of words it is clear that a plaintiff must make [a] showing which would support the exercise of the rather extraordinary power to restrain the defendant’s actions prior to a trial on the merits”].)

“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 nonissuance of the injunction.’ [Citation.]” (Costa Mesa City Employees Assn., supra, 209 Cal.App.4th at 306.)

Further, where the preliminary injunction mandates an affirmative act that changes the status quo, it is scrutinized even more closely for abuse of discretion. A preliminary mandatory injunction is rarely granted. The granting of a mandatory injunction pending trial is not permitted except in extreme cases where the right thereto is clearly established and it appears that irreparable injury will flow from its refusal. (Teachers Ins. & Annuity Assn. v. Furlotti (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1487, 1493; Integrated Dynamic Solutions, Inc. v.

VitaVet Labs, Inc. (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 1178, 1184; Perez v. Hastings College of the Law (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 453, 456-457.) More specifically, “[t]he granting of a mandatory injunction pending trial is not permitted except in extreme cases where the right thereto is clearly established.” (Teachers Ins. & Annuity Assn. v. Furlotti, supra, 70 Cal.App.4th at p. 1493.)

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.)

Here, Plaintiff has not shown her entitlement to a preliminary injunction.

First, most of the requested relief has been made moot by UFCC’s filing of the Verified Cross-Complaint in Intervention. Through that act, UFCC is providing the majority of the relief Plaintiff seeks, i.e., 1) paying the lienholder to satisfy the outstanding loan balance for the Vehicle and 2) prohibiting the remainder of the policy proceeds to be paid until the parties’ claims to the funds are adjudicated.

Second, to the extent Plaintiff seeks the additional mandatory injunctive relief of releasing the remaining proceeds to Plaintiff and not Bomar during the pendency of the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV025289: SHIVELY vs PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.,, et al. 02/10/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Department 54

action, Plaintiff has not shown her entitlement to said relief under the referenced standard. The status quo will be protected by UFCC’s future deposit of remaining funds due under the policy with the Court until this action concludes.

For the stated reasons, 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; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)

[1] Code of Civil Procedure section 527 provides in pertinent part: “The opposing party may, in response to an order to show cause, present affidavits relating to the granting of the preliminary injunction, and if the affidavits are served on the applicant at least two days prior to the hearing, the applicant shall not be entitled to any continuance on account thereof.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 527, subd. (e).)

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 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 54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.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.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV025289: SHIVELY vs PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.,, et al. 02/10/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Department 54

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.