Defendants’ motion to modify preliminary injunction is denied.

CCP § 533 allows the court to modify or dissolve any injunction or temporary restraining order based on a material change in facts, a change in the law, or the ends of justice. It states, in full,

“In any action, the court may on notice modify or dissolve an injunction or temporary restraining order upon a showing that there has been a material change in the facts upon which the injunction or temporary restraining order was granted, that the law upon which the injunction or temporary restraining order was granted has changed, or that the ends of justice would be served by the modification or dissolution of the injunction or temporary restraining order.”

When it granted Plaintiff’s preliminary injunction, the court ordered Plaintiff to post an undertaking in the amount of $20,000, the amount which Defendants themselves requested for the undertaking. Defendants now argue that Plaintiff has not continued to pay her monthly loan obligations and that a continuing failure to pay will cause further harm. They ask the court to increase the bond amount by an additional $39,600.

The court determines that an insufficient showing has been made to justify any modification sought by this motion. Defendants argue, in part, that harm continues to be suffered from the lost mortgage payments. Had the injunction been denied, these payments may not have been recovered by Defendants. Defendants may have sold the property earlier, but this was considered in conjunction with the initial undertaking order, and there is no evidence whatsoever as to any further injury or decline in property value. Importantly, there is also no evidence whatsoever for finding the unpaid mortgage payments to be the basis for calculating the harm to Defendants, and the continued failure of Plaintiff to pay is not an unforeseen change in facts or new injustice to Defendants.

With regard to the remaining motions, continued by Judge Wick from February 14, 2014, the court determines as follows:

With regard to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, that motion is denied.

Defendants’ alternative motion for summary adjudication is granted in part, and denied in part. The motion is granted as to issues 2 and 3, and is otherwise denied.

Defendants’ request for judicial notice is granted. However, the court notes that multiple exhibits were provided with separating exhibit tabs. California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1110(f), requires that “[e]ach exhibit must be separated by a hard 8 1/2 x 11 sheet with hard paper or plastic tabs extending below the bottom of the page, bearing the exhibit designation.” This failure to comply causes undue time consumption by the court in order to review these voluminous exhibits subject to the request for judicial notice.

Defendants’ objections are overruled.

Although the moving parties’ evidence, and the established facts which they support, appear sufficient to meet their burden as to each cause of action, Plaintiff provides evidence which establishes triable material issues of fact regarding every cause of action, except the second and third. Specifically, Plaintiff provides evidence demonstrating that she fulfilled all of the requirements under the trial plan to entitle her to a modification under the terms Defendants presented and agreed to, Defendants fraudulently induced her to go into default and sell her New Mexico property, Plaintiff acted to her detriment in reliance on Defendants’ assertions or promises or representations regarding the requirements for modification, and the need to be in default or sell the other property. Hylton Declaration; Facts16-18, 20-22, 25-27, 29-32, 35-37, 48-53, 55-61, 67-70, 73-77, 80, 82-112, 114-120. Plaintiff does not, however, provide any evidence showing that Defendants’ conduct involved any interference with any other contract or rights or benefits related to another contractual relationship.