## Facts

- Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) planned to build a new public school on an approximately 3.35-acre site in Echo Park.
- The project required demolition of 49 existing housing units.
- In 2005, LAUSD approved a mitigated negative declaration for the project, which was set aside in earlier litigation; a writ required LAUSD to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR).
- After LAUSD prepared and approved the EIR, The Right Site Coalition filed a new CEQA action challenging the EIR’s adequacy.
- While the CEQA action was pending, the Coalition sought a preliminary injunction to stop demolition of the 49 units.
- LAUSD opposed interim relief, asserting (among other things) the units had been vacant for over a year and further delay would increase costs and harm timely delivery of school facilities.
- The superior court denied the preliminary injunction based solely on the balance of hardships and expressly declined to consider the Coalition’s likelihood of success on the merits.

## Issues

1. Whether a trial court abuses its discretion by denying a preliminary injunction after refusing to evaluate the moving party’s likelihood of success on the merits and relying exclusively on the balance of hardships.
2. Whether California preliminary injunction doctrine requires courts to consider both likelihood of success and comparative interim harm under a sliding-scale framework.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the order denying the preliminary injunction and remanded for reconsideration.
- The court held the trial court abused its discretion by applying an incorrect legal standard—declining to consider likelihood of success on the merits.
- The court did not decide whether an injunction should issue or resolve the underlying CEQA merits; it directed the trial court to reevaluate the motion using the required two-factor test.

## Legal Principles

- A preliminary injunction determination requires weighing two interrelated factors: (1) the likelihood the plaintiff will prevail on the merits and (2) the comparative interim harm to each side if relief is granted or denied.
- The test operates on a sliding scale: a stronger showing on likelihood of success can justify relief with a lesser showing of hardship, and vice versa.
- A court abuses its discretion when it misapplies the governing legal standard; refusing to consider one of the required factors constitutes legal error.
- In CEQA cases, requests for interim injunctive relief are evaluated under general California preliminary injunction standards, including the two-factor, sliding-scale framework.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal required reconsideration of the Coalition’s request for interim relief because the trial court denied a preliminary injunction without assessing likelihood of success on the merits, even though California law mandates consideration of both success probability and comparative hardships.


Right Site Coal. v. L.A. Unified Sch. Dist., 72 Cal. Rptr. 3d 678 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)