Rees v. Gardner
| Decision Date | 25 October 1960 |
| Citation | 185 Cal.App.2d 630,8 Cal.Rptr. 505 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | , 47 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2206, 41 Lab.Cas. P 50,083 Louis J. REES, etc., et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. A. G. GARDNER et al., Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 6294. |
Garrett, Richman & Nicoson, Los Angeles, for appellants.
Hill, Farrer & Burrill, Los Angeles, for respondents.
The respondents have moved this court to dissolve a preliminary injunction issued by the trial court and to dismiss appeals concerning that injunction upon the ground that they are moot.
The respondents, who are the cross-complainants herein, obtained a preliminary injunction prohibiting the appellants, who are the cross-defendants herein, from picketing respondents' business, placing them on an 'unfair list', causing them to interfer with the rights of their employees to join or refuse to join a labor organization or causing any of their 'past, present or prospective' customers or suppliers to refuse to do business with them 'in any manner whatsoever.'
The prohibition against picketing was limited to respondents' business and the premises upon which it was being conducted. The remaining prohibitions were unlimited either as to place or kind of business. Pursuant to court order fixing the amount, respondents posted the required statutory undertaking in the sum of $1,000. Code Civ.Proc. § 529. Shortly thereafter appellants moved to dissolve this injunction and their motion was denied. Thereupon they appealed from both the order granting the injunction and the order refusing to dissolve the same. Since the perfection of these appeals respondents have sold the business which was the subject of appellant's picketing activities and, upon this ground, moved this court to dissolve the injunction and dismiss the pending appeals as moot. In an affidavit supporting this application one of the respondents states that it will make no difference to him whether or not the preliminary injunction is dissolved.
A preliminary injunction may be dissolved when there has been a change of the controlling factors upon which it rests or where the ends of justice would be served thereby. Union Interchange, Inc. v. Savage, 52 Cal.2d 601, 606, 342 P.2d 249; Sontag Chain Stores, Co. v. Superior Court, 18 Cal.2d 92, 95, 113 P.2d 689; Harbor Chevrolet Corp. v. Machinists Local Union 1484, 173 Cal.App.2d 380, 384, 343 P.2d 640; Branker v. Superior Court, 165 Cal.App.2d 816, 818, 332 P.2d 711. Such a proceeding, however, is not within the jurisdiction of this court under the circumstances here presented. The statutory authority conferred upon an Appellate Court to 'affirm, reverse, or modify any judgment or order appealed from' (Code Civ.Proc. § 53) does not authorize it to dissolve an injunction, which is the subject of an order granting the same that is pending on appeal, upon the ground that the conditions upon which it rests have changed since the order granting it was made. This is a matter beyond the scope of appellate review. This conclusion is well demonstrated by an assumption respecting a determination of the issues if the appellants rather than the respondents were the moving parties. Under the assumed circumstances a denial of the motion for lack of authority in this court would be obvious. The fact that the respondents, whose previous efforts were directed to maintaining the injunction, now seek to terminate it, is not determinative of the authority of this court to proceed in the premises. For these reasons the motion to dissolve the injunction must be denied.
This conclusion leaves for decision the question whether the sale of respondents' business and their presently declared attitude that it makes no difference to them whether or not the injunction is dissolved renders moot the issues presented by the pending appeals....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Motown Record Corp. v. Brockert
...companies were not entitled to the injunction, Teena Marie may be entitled to recover upon this undertaking. (Rees v. Gardner (1960) 185 Cal.App.2d 630, 633, 8 Cal.Rptr. 505.) An additional reason for proceeding to the merits of this appeal lies in the fact it involves an issue of continuin......
-
Save Our Residential Environment v. City of West Hollywood
...fees depends on the propriety of the trial court's ruling on the merits of the action, the appeal is not moot. (Rees v. Gardner (1960) 185 Cal.App.2d 630, 633, 8 Cal.Rptr. 505; see also 9 Witkin, Cal.Procedure (3rd ed. 1985) Appeals, § 525, pp. 507-509 and cases cited Finally, even if the C......
-
Rosilho v. Young
...cause of action against the injunction bond, which would preserve our jurisdiction over this appeal. As explained in Rees v. Gardner (1960) 185 Cal.App.2d 630 (Rees), "as a prerequisite to the issuance of the injunction, respondents posted an undertaking, the condition of which was that app......
-
Santa Clara Cnty. Dep't of Family & Children's Servs. v. V.B. (In re O.B.), H037449
...subject of a judgment or order from which an appeal has been taken no longer exists, the appeal should be dismissed." (Rees v. Gardner (1960) 185 Cal.App.2d 630, 632.) We shall dismiss the appeal as moot.CONCLUSION The appeal is dismissed as moot. _________________ Duffy, J.* WE CONCUR: ___......