Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

Injunctive Relief

Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

The Government Claims Statute (Gov. Code 905) requires plaintiffs to file a government claim with the prospective government entity defendant before filing a suit for damages.  However, the statute does not apply to actions for injunctive, specific, or declaratory relief--even if the declaration might be used in a later suit for damages.  Here, a contractor sued for a declaration regarding… Read More

A civil harassment injunction entered in favor of an attorney for one of a divorcing couple against the attorney for the other spouse was reversed.  Insofar as the injunction was based on emails that defendant sent plaintiff about the divorce, the emails didn't threaten violence and so were protected First Amendment speech which could not be considered in support of… Read More

The trial court erred in granting homeowners an injunction against the county Road Commissioner barring the county from enforcing ordinances banning encroachments on a county road leading to a popular public hiking trail.  Courts may not enjoin enforcement of the laws, which in this case make encroachments a misdemeanor offense.  Contrary to the homeowners' claim, CEQA does not require any… Read More

When a plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction claiming a state statute infringes on plaintiff's constitutional rights, the district court must weigh the plaintiff's probability of success on the merits as well as the existence of irreparable injury and the balance of equities and public interest because the probability of success on the merits heavily influences the evaluation of the other… Read More

The district court did not err in holding that Apple violated the UCL's "unfair" prong by prohibiting app developers from advertising to consumer iPhone users that they could pay through other means than Apple's in-app payment system and thereby save money.  Epic's mere failure to prove its antitrust claim doesn't bar it from establishing the practice is unfair under Cal-Tech's… Read More

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in entering a preliminary injunction under the CLRA against defendants continuing to sell puppies which they falsely claimed were healthy but in fact were not and died in many cases within days after sale.  Defendants' main argument on appeal was that the evidence didn't show that they sold the puppies that plaintiffs'… Read More

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

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

CCP 527.8(o) allows a respondent in a workplace harassment injunction action one mandatory continuance in which to respond to the petition.  This decision holds that when the respondent has already filed a written response to the petition, 527.8(o) is inapplicable, and the respondent is not entitled to a continuance of the injunction hearing absent a showing of good cause under… Read More

This decision holds that the Anti-Injunction Act (28 USC 2283) does not bar a suit to enjoin the IRS from enforcing its regulation which requires tax payers and their material advisors from filing an informational notice about micro-captive insurance programs which the IRS thinks are often used to dodge taxes without actually providing insurance.  The informational notice is not a… Read More

This decision reverses a preliminary injunction against the county's implementation of COVID-19 health protocols that shut down restaurants, and particularly, those like plaintiff's restaurant that provided nude or semi-nude adult entertainment with their restaurant services.  The preliminary injunction violated due process in banning all restrictions on restaurants generally, when the complaint and preliminary injunction papers were limited to First Amendment… Read More