Steele- Pfleger, Amanda v. Brower’s 25Hr Towing et al.

8. 26CV01185 Steele-Pfleger, Amanda v. Brower’s 25Hr Towing et al.

EVENT: OSC re: Preliminary Injunction

The Court will conduct a hearing. The Court notes there is no indication in the file that Defendants have been served with the TRO, OSC, Ex Parte Application, and Summons and Complaint. Until that occurs, the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the OSC re: preliminary injunction.

Further, although the order permitted Plaintiff to serve these documents in a variety of ways, including email or “any method reasonably calculated to provide actual notice”, CRC 3.1150(a) requires that when Defendant has yet to appear (as is the case here) the OSC must be served in the same manner as the summons and complaint. The Code of Civil Procedure provides specific requirements for the service of summons. Those requirements are not as relaxed as the various means of service described in the previous order. Plaintiff will need to serve all documents in compliance with the Code of Civil Procedure requirements for service of the summons. Without compliance, the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the preliminary injunction.

The Court is inclined to continue the OSC re: preliminary injunction one time to permit Plaintiff the opportunity to effectuate code compliant service. The continued hearing date is June 24, 2026 at 9:00am. Notice of that hearing date and time must also be served on Defendant. The TRO would remain in place during that time. However, if notice is not properly effectuated prior to the continued hearing, the Court would be inclined to deny the OSC re: preliminary injunction and dissolve the TRO.

7|Page