X hits on this document

Word document

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION - page 8 / 43

102 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

8 / 43

Defendants argue that in evaluating the two factors, we must apply a clear and convincing evidence standard.  In other words, we must decide whether the trial court abused its discretion in concluding plaintiff established by clear and convincing evidence he is likely to prevail on the merits and that the balance of potential harms is in his favor.  In People v. Englebrecht (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 1236 (Englebrecht), the Court of Appeal concluded the importance of the interests affected by a gang injunction “requires that the finding of facts necessary to justify its issuance be proved by clear and convincing evidence.”  (Id. at p. 1256.)  

Plaintiff contends Englebrecht involved a permanent injunction rather than a preliminary injunction and argues defendants “cite no authority for the proposition that in the context of a preliminary injunction the superior court must apply the clear and convincing standard.”  However, it is plaintiff who fails to cite authority for the proposition that different standards apply to preliminary and permanent injunctions.  In either case, the interests involved are the same; only the duration is different.  A point not argued or supported by citation to authority is forfeited.  (Kim v. Sumitomo Bank (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 974, 979.)   

Defendants further argue the clear and convincing evidence standard requires evidence “that is ‘so clear as to leave no substantial doubt’ and ‘sufficiently strong to command the unhesitating [assent] of every reasonable mind.’”  Defendants cite as support Broadman v. Commission on Judicial Performance

8

Document info
Document views102
Page views102
Page last viewedFri Dec 09 08:12:54 UTC 2016
Pages43
Paragraphs202
Words10151

Comments