City of Anaheim v. The Superior Court of Orange County, (Respondent); Angels Baseball, a California Limited Partnership, (Real Party in Interest).
Request for preliminary injunction enjoining real party in interest Angels Baseball, L.P. (ABLP) from changing the name of its baseball team from the Anaheim Angels to the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim.
June 27, 2005
Format - Abobe PDF (Pgs. 28)
File Size - 80kb
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Original proceedings; petition for a writ of mandate to challenge an order of
the Superior Court of Orange County, Peter J. Polos, Judge. Petition denied.
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, Andrew J. Guilford, Matthew J.
Erwin, Jeffrey Blank; Rutan & Tucker, Michael Rubin, Todd Litfin, Andrew Ainsworth;
and Jack L. White, City Attorney, for Petitioner.
Stephen, Oringer, Richman & Theodora, George J. Stephan, Robert M.
Dato, Brian P. Barrow; Powell Goldstein, William B. Shearer, Jr., and William V. Custer
for Real Party in Interest.
* * *
Petitioner City of Anaheim (Anaheim) sought a preliminary injunction
enjoining real party in interest Angels Baseball, L.P. (ABLP) from changing the name of
its baseball team from the Anaheim Angels to the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. The
trial court denied the request, and Anaheim now seeks an extraordinary writ requiring the
court to vacate its denial, and enter a new order granting the preliminary injunction.
Our review is narrowly limited to determining whether the court abused its
discretion in denying the preliminary injunction. A court abuses its discretion when its
decision is arbitrary, capricious and exceeds the bounds of reason, or ignores the
uncontradicted evidence. The trial court’s decision that Anaheim failed to demonstrate a
likelihood of success on the merits, as we discuss below, was supported by substantial
evidence and was well within the bounds of reason. We therefore deny the writ petition.
Because of our inquiry’s narrow focus, however, our decision today does
not declare any party the ultimate victor. Indeed, at trial, today’s opinion places neither
party ahead or behind in the count.