Digiacomo

Digiacomo v. Recology CA1/4

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 30, 2022A162871California2,726 words

Opinion

Opinion

Brown, J.

BACKGROUND

Appellant sued respondent in December 2019. He filed his operative second amended complaint in September 2020, alleging a private nuisance claim stemming from the noise generated from respondent’s recyclables, compost, and waste collection activity late at night and early in the morning, and the noise from third-

1 party “dumpster div[ing]” in unlocked collection bins in Maiden Lane, the alleyway below appellant’s apartment in the Union Square District of San Francisco. In November 2020, appellant requested a preliminary injunction seeking to prohibit respondent from collecting recyclables, compost, and residual waste in Maiden Lane from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., and seeking to compel respondent to install locks on collection bins in Maiden Lane. Respondent opposed the motion on the grounds that appellant’s request did not preserve the status quo; appellant failed to carry his burden of demonstrating the likelihood of prevailing on the merits; and appellant failed to carry his burden of demonstrating that he will suffer irreparable injury if the motion were denied. Following a hearing, the trial court denied appellant’s motion. After reciting that appellant was…

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.