What is the legal test for a motion to vacate an injunctive order?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from In re Butler, 230 Cal.Rptr.3d 736, 4 Cal.5th 728, 413 P.3d 1178 (Cal. 2018):
motion to modify or vacate an injunctive order, we review it for abuse of discretion. ( Salazar v. Eastin (1995) 9 Cal.4th 836, 850, 39 Cal.Rptr.2d 21, 890 P.2d 43 ( Salazar ).) Under this
[4 Cal.5th 739]
standard, we consider the court's legal conclusions de novo, and assess its factual findings for substantial evidence. ( Haraguchi v. Superior Court (2008) 43 Cal.4th 706, 711, 76 Cal.Rptr.3d 250, 182 P.3d 579.) We will not reverse the court's application of the law to the facts unless it is "arbitrary and capricious." ( Id. at p. 712, 76 Cal.Rptr.3d 250, 182 P.3d 579.) When a
[230 Cal.Rptr.3d 744]
court decides not to modify an order despite a material change in the law fundamentally undermining the presumptions underlying the parties' acceptance of a settlement agreement, its decision ordinarily constitutes an abuse of discretion. (See Welsch v. Goswick (1982) 130 Cal.App.3d 398, 408-409, 181 Cal.Rptr. 703 [holding that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to modify a stipulated injunctive order following a material change in the law].)
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
