which defines a public nuisance as “anything that is injurious to health, including…the illegal sale of controlled substances…” (Civ. Code § 3479.) Again the evidence shows that Defendants have permitted the sale of cannabis and cannabis related products at the Subject Property.

Moreover, the evidence shows that the Subject Property is being used for the “purpose of unlawfully selling, serving, storing, keeping, manufacturing or giving away any controlled substance” and is therefore a nuisance under Health & Safety Code § 11570.

Plaintiffs have demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of their claims.

In addition, the balance of harms tips heavily in Plaintiffs’ favor. Where a municipality seeks to prevent statutory violations which, like Health & Safety Code § 11570 explicitly provide for injunctive relief, the harm caused to the public is presumed to outweigh any harm to the defendant. (IT Corp. v. County of Imperial (1983) 35 Cal.3d 63, 72.) “[O]nce a trial Court has determined that the governmental entity will probably succeed at trial in proving a statutory violation, the court is justified in presuming that public harm will result if an injunction is not issued.” (Id.) As a result, here, the balance of harms is presumed to favor Plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to a preliminary injunction.

In so ruling the Court would note that a preliminary injunction is merely a provisional or auxiliary remedy to preserve the status quo until final judgment. (See Kendall v. Foulks (1919) 180 Cal. 171, 173.) The order granting the preliminary injunction is not a determination of the ultimate right to a permanent injunction; it is, as noted, based on a showing that it is desirable to maintain the status quo pending a determination of the merits. (See Continental Baking Co. v. Katz (1968) 68 Cal.2d 512, 528; State Bd. of Barber Examiners v. Star (1970) 8 Cal. App.3d 736, 739, 740, [trial judge’s purported ruling on constitutional question at hearing on preliminary injunction was not binding on court at trial]).

No bond is required as Plaintiffs are public entities. (CCP § 529.)

Pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312, Plaintiffs shall submit an order for the Court’s signature consistent with the above and the TRO that the Court issued on May 17, 2018.