Motion for Preliminary Injunction
26CV183173: JC&JL, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. vs TSANG, et al. 08/07/2026 Order to Show Cause Re: . in Department 520
Tentative Ruling - 08/06/2026 Jamilah A. Jefferson
The Motion for Preliminary Injunction is CONTINUED TO AUGUST 14, 2026.
The Court is inclined to grant the request for preliminary injunction, at least in part, and consistent with its intention to maintain the status quo to the greatest extent possible as noted in the Court's temporary restraining order (TRO) entered on July 10, 2026.
In order for the Court to grant the requested preliminary injunction, Plaintiff must establish (1) a reasonable probability that they will prevail on the merits of the underlying action and (2) harm from not granting the preliminary injunction outweighs the harm to Defendant if the injunction is granted. (Robbins v. Superior Court (1985) 38 Cal.3d 199, 206.) Generally, however, the greater the showing of one element, the less that must be demonstrated for the other element. (King v. Meese (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1217, 1226-28.) Further, irreparable harm is necessary for a temporary order. (CCP § 526(a)(2).) An inadequate legal remedy, such as monetary damages, is generally indicative of irreparable harm - or, harm, that cannot be later repaired. (People ex rel. Gow v. Mitchell Brothers' Santa Ana Theater (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 863, 870-71.)
The Court does not intend to interrupt, disrupt, or alter business operations in a manner that is severely detrimental to the continued success of the cultivation business, as that appears to not be in the interest of any party. Unfortunately, the Court is unable to fully understand, from the briefs submitted thus far, the business structure and the relationship of all defendants to the corporate Plaintiff(s). It is unclear whether the business can continue to operate under the present TRO provisions.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
It is also unclear whether opposing defendants, Be Water Holdings, Inc., Green OHO, LLC, and Qiauhong Liang, are authorized to continue operating or providing cultivation services under the current TRO provisions - or whether Plaintiff Li seeks to halt them as well. Further, given Plaintiff Li's departure from the corporate Plaintiff in 2025, the status quo may not be as Plaintiff Li describes in July 2026.
The Court does understand that it appears that Plaintiff Li's primary concern with Defendant Tsang is monetary in nature and that may be remedied through monetary relief that can result from the litigation. A TRO and/or preliminary injunction is not designed to remedy action where other relief - particularly monetary - is available. Further, Plaintiff Li does not appear to be an uninterested third-party "employee" as Defendants imply/argue. "Mr. Wu.", the person on whose alleged behalf Plaintiff Li is acting, is interesting absent from the current litigation implying that Plaintiff Li is, in fact, his "authorized agent" or Plaintiff Li is the "shareholder."
Either way, Plaintiff Li appears to have "standing" to assert his position. Nonetheless, the Court's task remains difficult. 26CV183173: JC&JL, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. vs TSANG, et al. 08/07/2026 Order to Show Cause Re: . in Department 520 To assist the Court, the parties - at least those who are actively involved in this motion - Plaintiffs and Defendants Tsang, Be Water Holdings, Inc., Green OHO, LLC, and Qiauhong Liang - must immediately meet and confer (if time is truly of the essence as Defendants appear to suggest) to determine an agreed upon manner in which the business can operate while preserving assets, equipment, and income streams but also maintaining the spirit of the TRO, which is to allow Plaintiff Li to review or monitor (without diverting) operations/funds/processes/etc.
The parties shall submit a proposed agreement no later than August 12, 2026 (with courtesy copy directly to Department 520) that the Court can issue as a preliminary injunction pending outcome of the litigation. If the parties cannot agree, they shall, very concisely, identify the obstacles to agreement in a joint submission of no more than five (5) pages. If the parties need additional time to determine how to fashion agreeable terms that are consistent with the Court's overarching goal, they shall inform the Court in a status update no later than August 12, 2026 (with courtesy copy directly to Department 520).
The Order to Show Cause Re: . scheduled for 08/07/2026 is continued to 08/14/2026 at 10:45 AM in Department 520 at Hayward Hall of Justice.
NOTICE: This tentative ruling will automatically become the courts final order on August 7, 2026 unless, by no later than 5:00 P.M. on August 6, 2026, a party to the action notifies BOTH: 1) the court by emailing Dept520@alameda.courts.ca.gov; AND 2) all opposing counsel or selfrepresented parties (by telephone or email) that the party is contesting this tentative ruling.
The subject line (RE:) of the email must state: Request for CONTESTED HEARING: [the case name], [number]. When a party emails to contest a tentative ruling, the party must identify the specific holding(s) within the ruling they wish to contest via oral argument.
The court does not provide court reporters for hearings in civil departments. A party who wants a record of the proceedings must engage a private court reporter. (Local Rule 3.95.) Any privately retained court reporter must also participate via video conference. Their email must be provided to the court at the time the Notice of Contest is emailed.
ALL CONTESTED LAW AND MOTION HEARINGS ARE CONDUCTED VIA REMOTE VIDEO unless an in person appearance is required by the court. Invitations to participate in the video proceeding will be sent by the court upon receipt of timely notice of contest. A party may give email notice that they will appear in court in person for the hearing, however all other counsel/parties and the JUDGE MAY APPEAR REMOTELY.