Injunctive Relief

On remand from the US Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of Van Buren v. United States (2021) 141 S.Ct. 1648, the Ninth Circuit reaffirms its holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in entering a preliminary injunction barring LinkedIn from preventing HiQ from "scraping" data from public LinkedIn posts by threats of suit or technological blocking… Read More

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that neither party prevailed or was entitled to an attorney fee award under the Davis-Stirling Act (Civ. Code 5975(e)) or the private attorney general statute (CCP 1021.5) in this suit by a condo owner against the condo association.  Although plaintiff obtained a preliminary injunction and prevailed in forcing the condo… Read More

In this action under 42 USC 1983, B&G alleged that Embry violated B&G's free speech rights by suing it under California's Prop. 65 for failing to include on its packaging the Prop. 65 warning that B&G's cookies contained acrylamide, a chemical supposedly known to California to cause cancer.  The decision holds that in seeking to enjoin Embry from suing B&G,… Read More

This decision affirms a preliminary injunction issued against the California Attorney General and private parties preventing them from filing suit under Prop. 65 to require food manufacturers to give the standard Prop. 65 warning about acrylamide being a chemical supposedly "known" to cause cancer.  Under Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 471 U.S. 626 (1985), the compelled speech (the required… Read More

Following Judge v. Nijjar Realty, Inc. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 619 and disagreeing with Maplebear, Inc. v. Busick (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 394, this decision holds that an arbitrator's preliminary injunction order is not an "award" and is not reviewable by a California trial court under CCP 1294, and the trial court's order dismissing a petition to vacate the arbitrator's preliminary injunction… Read More

Owners of adjoining apartments mediated Doe's civil harassment prevention action, reaching an agreement that provided, among other things, that the parties agree not to disparage one another.  This decision holds that read in light of the limited nature of the action and surrounding circumstances, the provision could not reasonably be read to ban Doe from saying negative things about Olson… Read More

This decision dismisses as moot a suit that a taxpayer brought seeking to enjoin a program for granting emergency aid to undocumented aliens in California during the COVID pandemic.  The program proceeded while the case was pending.  All the program's money was spent.  There is no way to get the money back and no realistic threat that the program will… Read More

This decision holds that the district court erred in denying Comcast's motion to compel arbitration even though its arbitration clause precluded customers from litigating public injunction claims in any forum.  First, the decision holds that the mere presence of the clause in the arbitration agreement does not automatically invalidate the arbitration agreement for all purposes--but rather only in cases that… Read More

An appeal automatically stays a mandatory injunction, but not a prohibitory injunction.  Here, the trial court ordered the San Bernardino Board of Supervisors to remove and replace one of its sitting members based on the trial court's finding that the board had violated the Brown Act (Gov. Code 54950) requiring open meetings.  A mandatory injunction is one that commands a… Read More

The district court correctly denied plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction before compelling arbitration of the plaintiff's wage-and-hour misclassification claims.  Plaintiff had sought an injunction requiring Uber to reclassify all its drivers as employees rather than independent contractors.  That injunction would have changed, not preserved, the status quo pending arbitration.  Also, there was no urgent need for an injunction before… Read More