FIELD DOCUMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

i Francis and the community of a spill of the Benzene is so great and irreparable,that it easily outweighs 2 any inconvenience or harm to Alexander. 3 A. Alexander Should Be Held in Contempt for Removing the Office Furniture and 4 Equipment from the Property 5 It is undisputed that on February 24, 1995, Alexander was caught red-handed,removing office 6 furniture and equipment from the Property in blatant violation of the Stipulated Prelimiq#y Injunction. • V 7 Alexander should be held in contempt of the Preliminary Injunction because the following facts have ,E 8 been established: (i) the Preliminary Injunction prohibits Alexander from removing any personal ;j 9 property other than kiwifruit, (ii) Alexander's-knowledge of the Preliminary Injunction, (iii);Alexander's 10 ability to comply with the Preliminary Injunction, and (iv) Alexander's wilful disobedience of the 11 Preliminary injunction. 8 Witkin, Summary of California Procedure (3d.Ed. 1985), afQrpeM= 12 Judgme , § 337. 13 Tle Preliminary Injunction is clear and unambiguous. Paragraph 3 specifically prohibits -� 14 Alexander or anyone under Alexander's control from removing any equipment, fixture or personal 15 property located inside any building or elsewhere on the Property, except "kiwifruit products". 1 16- Alexander signed the Stipulated Preliminary Injunction, and was well aware that it prohibited him from 17 removing personal property other than kiwifruit. 18 As set forth in the declaration of Dorothy McGuire, on February 24, 1995, Alexander was cant E . 19 read-handed loading a U-Haul truck full of office furniture and equipment. It is uncontroverted that 20 McGuire told Alexander that the Stipulated Preliminary Injunction prohibited hire from removing the .: 21 personal property, anal demanded that he cease his'activity immediately. It is also uncontroverted that 22 McGuire called the San Joaquin Sheriff, but Alexander directed his son to leave with the U-Haul before 23 the Sheriff arrived at the scene. 24 Alexander's excuse that the property belongs to him is untrue and immaterial. The Stipulated 25 Preliminary Injunction does not state that Alexander may remove property if he claims it belongs to him; 26 the order clearly prohibits him from removing any property other than kiwifruit product. Who owns the 27 property is disputed in this case, and that was the very reason for the Preliminary Injunction. 28 Alexander should be held in contempt of this Court's order, and should be jailed and/or fined 2