Kobler v. Mark CA1/4

Filed 3/21/23 Kobler v. Mark CA1/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

AMANDA KOBLER, Plaintiff and Respondent, A166038 v. (Alameda County Super. Ct. JEFFREY W.T. MARK et al., No. RG21100707) Defendants and Appellants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 I. In an effort to enforce a settlement agreement, appellants Jeffrey W.T. Mark and Li Wen Bu obtained a judgment in Alameda County Superior Court No. RG16829323 against respondent Amanda Kobler and initiated proceedings in Sint Maarten to enforce the judgment by foreclosing on a home owned there by respondent. Respondent then filed Alameda County Superior Court No. RG21100707, the action that gives rise to this appeal, seeking to attack the judgment against her in No. RG16829323 as void. She alleged that she was never served with the complaint in No. RG16829323, appellants’ showing

We resolve this case by a memorandum opinion pursuant to the 1

California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1.

1

on that issue was fraudulent, and thus the court lacked personal jurisdiction over her. The trial court in No. RG21100707 granted a preliminary injunction enjoining appellants from further pursuing the Sint Maarten foreclosure proceedings. Emphasizing that its determination was preliminary, the trial court found that respondent made a plausible showing that she would prevail in No. RG21100707, and that the balance of harms tipped in her favor. This timely appeal followed. II. “The decision whether to issue a preliminary injunction lies in the sound discretion of the trial court, which we do not disturb absent an abuse of discretion. [Citations.] On appeal we do not weigh conflicting evidence, but defer to the trial court’s factual findings if they are supported by substantial evidence. [Citation.] To the extent the trial court’s ruling rests on a legal issue, we review it de novo. [Citation.] The burden is on the party challenging the injunction to make a clear showing the trial court abused its discretion.” (People v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 266, 283.) “In general, when considering a request for a preliminary injunction, the trial court weighs two interrelated factors. The first is the likelihood the party seeking relief will prevail on the merits, and the second is the relative interim harm to the parties if the preliminary injunction is granted or denied. [Citations.] The goal is to minimize the harm that an erroneous interim decision would cause.” (People v. Uber Technologies, Inc., supra, 56 Cal.App.5th at p. 283.) Appellants argue reversible error on three grounds: (1) respondent failed to show a plausible likelihood of success and the balance of interim