# Tahoe Keys Property Owners' Ass'n v. State Water Resources Control Board

> California Court of Appeal · March 30, 1994 · 23 Cal. App. 4th 1459

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9748092

## Case

- **Full name:** TAHOE KEYS PROPERTY OWNERS’ ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD Et Al., Defendants and Respondents
- **Court:** California Court of Appeal
- **Decided:** March 30, 1994
- **Citations:** 23 Cal. App. 4th 1459; 28 Cal. Rptr. 2d 734; 94 Daily Journal DAR 4345; 94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2451; 1994 Cal. App. LEXIS 303
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Scotland
- **Judges:** Sparks, Scotland
- **Cited by:** 28 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9748092

## Opinion text

SCOTLAND, J.
I concur in the result but write separately because I believe it is unnecessary for this court to consider the question whether plaintiff is likely to prevail on the merits at trial.
In determining whether to grant or deny a request for a preliminary injunction, the trial court must consider the likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits at trial and must weigh the interim harm to the plaintiff if the injunction is denied against the interim harm to the defendant if the injunction is granted. (Cohen v. Board of Supervisors (1985) 40 Cal.3d 277, 287 [ 219 Cal.Rptr. 467 , 707 P.2d 840 ].) Thus, the respective equities of the parties must be balanced to determine whether, pending a trial on the merits, the defendant should or should not be restrained from exercising the right it claims. (Ibid.) “When a trial court denies an application for a preliminary injunction, it implicitly determines that the plaintiffs have failed to satisfy either or both of the ‘interim harm’ and ‘likelihood of prevailing on the merits’ factors. On appeal, the question becomes whether the trial court abused its discretion in ruling on both factors.” (Id., at pp. 286-287, italics in original.) “Even if the appellate court finds that the trial court abused its discretion as to one of the factors, it nevertheless may affirm the trial court’s order if it finds no abuse of discretion as to the other." (Id., at p. 287, italics added.)
I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the record shows little risk of irreparable harm to plaintiff if provisional relief is denied and significant risk of harm to defendants if such relief is granted. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the preliminary injunction. (Cohen v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 40 Cal.3d at pp. 286-287.)
Because the trial court’s order may be affirmed on the interim harm analysis alone, I decline to consider whether plaintiff has shown it is likely to prevail at trial on its claim that the mitigation fee charged as a condition for obtaining building permits is unlawful.
Appellant’s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied June 16, 1994.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9748092. Public record. Not legal advice.