Egelhoff

Egelhoff v. Bojkovsky CA4/3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 18, 2015G050885MCalifornia1,399 words

Opinion

Opinion

Ikola, J.

FACTS

We begin with the observation that the issuance of a preliminary injunction must be based on declarations or a verified complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., § 527, subd. 1 During the pendency of this appeal, Dale Egelhoff passed away. Laurie Egelhoff substituted in as the personal representative of his estate.

2 (a).) Here, the complaint was not verified, and the declarations provide a meager factual record. In his appellate brief, Egelhoff attempted to fill in some of those gaps with factual assertions that have no accompanying record citations. We will not consider those assertions. What follows is what we can glean from the evidence properly before the trial court. Pacific Lightwave is in the business of providing internet, phone service, IT service, network infrastructure, and WiFi hot spots. Defendants Simon and Allison Bojkovsky each own one-third of the shares of Pacific Lightwave and are directors. In 2 his complaint, Egelhoff claims to own one-half of the shares of the company. Under circumstances not revealed by the record, defendants had previously sued Egelhoff and obtained a preliminary injunction preventing him from utilizing Pacific Lightwave’s “customer…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.