Silver-Bronze Corporation v. Sup. Ct.

Filed 7/27/06 Silver-Bronze Corporation v. Sup. Ct. CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

Original proceedings; petition for a writ of mandate/prohibition to challenge an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, William M. Monroe, Judge. Petition granted.

Rutan & Tucker, Layne H. Melzer, William J. Caplan, and Peter J. Howell for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

No appearance for Real Party in Interest.

* * *

THE COURT:*

Petitioner Silver-Bronze Corporation filed an unlawful detainer action for possession of certain commercial property against real party in interest Three Arch Corporation. Its unopposed motion for summary judgment was granted, judgment was entered, and a writ of possession issued. No appeal has been filed, and no application for a stay of the judgment or writ of possession has been filed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1176, subd. (a).) While the unlawful detainer action was pending, Three Arch Corporation filed this separate civil action for promissory estoppel and fraud regarding the negotiations surrounding the lease, and sought $500,000 in damages. The civil complaint does not allege any right to possession.

A few days after judgment was entered in the unlawful detainer action, Three Arch Corporation filed an ex parte application in the civil action for a temporary restraining order and an order to show cause for a preliminary injunction â€