Egelhoff v. Bojkovsky CA4/3

Filed 8/17/15 Egelhoff v. Bojkovsky CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

LAURIE EGELHOFF,

Plaintiff and Appellant, G050885

v. (Super. Ct. No. INC1207926)

SIMON BOJKOVSKY et al., OPINION

Defendants and Respondents.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Harold W. Hopp, Judge. Affirmed. Joshua R. Furman Law Corp. and Joshua R. Furman, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Law Office of James M. Graff-Radford and James M. Graff-Radford for Defendants and Respondents Simon Bojkovsky and Allison Bojkovsky. Rhona S. Kauffman for Defendant and Appellant Simon Bojkovsky. Law Office of Rodney Lee Soda and Rodney Lee Soda for Defendant and Respondent Allison Bojkovsky.

Law Office of Michael A. Kruppe, Michael A. Kruppe and Christian D. Molloy for Defendant and Respondent Pacific Lightwave.

* * *

This case is a shareholder derivative lawsuit alleging the controlling shareholders, who also control the board of directors, are looting the company. Plaintiff 1 Dale Egelhoff is the minority shareholder. He appeals from an order denying a motion for a preliminary injunction that would have prevented Simon and Allison Bojkovsky (defendants and controlling shareholders) from using funds of the company, Pacific Lightwave, “to enrich themselves, directly or indirectly,” and would have appointed a receiver “to approve all expenditures of [Pacific Lightwave] and to ensure that said expenditures are solely for the proper and usual business expenses of [Pacific Lightwave].” The court found Egelhoff had failed to demonstrate irreparable harm and that the proposed injunction would be too difficult to administer. On appeal, Egelhoff claims the court employed the wrong legal standard, and, in any event, the ruling was an abuse of discretion on the evidence before the court. We affirm. The trial court correctly applied the irreparable-harm standard, and the court’s finding that the alleged monetary losses are not irreparable harm was within the court’s discretion.