Case Number: BC685576 Hearing Date: July 23, 2018 Dept: 5

Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Department 5

Russell Lee Richardson,

Plaintiff,

v.

Jenny Yiuning Koo, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC685576

Hearing Date: July 23, 2018

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

Plaintiff’s motion for a PReliminary Injunction

BACKGROUND

This action arises from a motor vehicle and motorcycle collision. Plaintiff Russel Lee Richardson (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint on December 4, 2017 against Defendant Jenny Yiuning Koo (“Defendant”) including causes of action for motor vehicle and general negligence.

Plaintiff requests that the Court grant a preliminary injunction to enjoin and restrain Defendant from selling or transferring any real property owned by Defendant until the resolution of this case. Defendant opposes this motion, and Plaintiff has replied.

Legal Standard

The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo pending final resolution upon a trial. (See Scaringe v. J.C.C. Enterprises, Inc. (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1536.) The status quo has been defined to mean the last actual peaceable, uncontested status which preceded the pending controversy. (14859 Moorpark Homeowner’s Assn. v. VRT Corp. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1396. 1402.) Preliminary injunctive relief requires the use of competent evidence to create a sufficient factual showing on the grounds for relief. (See, e.g., ReadyLink Healthcare v. Cotton (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1016; Ancora-Citronelle Corp. v. Green (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 146, 150.)

The trial court considers two factors in determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction: (1) the likelihood the moving party will prevail on the merits of its case at trial, and (2) the interim harm the moving party is likely to sustain if the injunction is denied as compared to the harm the non-moving party is likely to suffer if the court grants a preliminary injunction. (Code Civ. Proc. § 526(a); Husain v. McDonald’s Corp. (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 860, 866-67.) The balancing of harm between the parties “involves consideration of such things as the inadequacy of other remedies, the degree of irreparable harm, and the necessity of preserving the status quo.” (Husain, supra, 205 Cal.App.4th at 867.) Thus, a preliminary injunction may not issue without some showing of potential entitlement to such relief. (Doe v. Wilson (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 296, 304.) The decision to grant a preliminary injunction generally lies within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. (Thornton v. Carlson (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1249, 1255.)

Discussion

Plaintiff bring this motion for preliminary injunction under CCP § 526(a). He argues that a preliminary injunction is required because Plaintiff’s damages exceed Defendant’s insurance policy limit of $250,000 and thus, Defendant must be prevented from selling assets that could otherwise be used to satisfy any judgment that is obtained in this case. Plaintiff argues that he will suffer irreparable injury as follows: “If Defendant is able to sell or transfer her assets and leave the country, Plaintiff will be left with little recourse [for compensation of his damages].” (Def. Mot., at pg. 5.)

In opposition, Defendant argues that there is no legal basis for granting the requested preliminary injunction. Defendant also argues that Plaintiff has failed to provide sufficient evidence to show good cause to support a preliminary injunction. Defendant points out that the only evidence Plaintiff presents to support the claim that he will prevail on the merits is Plaintiff’s contention that Defendant has admitted to liability by offering to pay the limit on Defendant’s insurance policy.

The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a sufficient legal basis for granting a preliminary injunction. Plaintiff cites to no authority supporting the issuance of a preliminary injunction under the circumstances presented. The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to maintain the status quo so that the litigation may move forward. Plaintiff cites no authority that allows the granting of a preliminary injunction to freeze a defendant’s assets in anticipation that Plaintiff might collect in the event of a favorable verdict after trial. Plaintiff fails to demonstrate irreparable harm. The type of relief that Plaintiff seeks is possible through other procedural mechanisms, for example, through a writ of prejudgment attachment, but not by way of preliminary injunction. As a preliminary injunction is not the correct vehicle for the relief requested, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion without prejudice. Should Plaintiff wish to seek this relief through a more appropriate procedural vehicle, then he may move for such relief under the correct authority.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction is denied without prejudice.

All parties should note that the hearing on this motion and all future hearings in this case will take place at the Court’s new location: Spring Street Courthouse, 312 N. Spring Street, Department 5, Los Angeles, CA 90012.

Plaintiff is ordered to provide notice of this order, including the Court’s new location and new department number, and file proof of service of such.

DATED: July 23, 2018 ___________________________

Elaine Lu

Judge of the Superior Court