Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
T-Mobile West, LLC operates wireless facilities on tower space adjacent to a UFO-themed hotel being developed in Baker by Luis O. Ramallo, Susana T. Ramallo, and The Ramallos, Inc., doing business as Alien Fresh Jerky. T-Mobile alleged that steel and fiberglass "ray gun" features installed on the hotel rooftop obstructed radio-frequency transmissions. Its complaint asserted breach of easement, declaratory judgment, and private nuisance, relying on a recorded 1961 easement granting Pacific Telephone and its successors and assigns rights concerning communication facilities and the clearing of obstructions.
T-Mobile sought a preliminary injunction requiring removal of the rooftop features. Its engineering evidence described the affected facility as a donor site serving seven other facilities and asserted that relocation or other workarounds would be costly, uncertain, and time-consuming. Defendants disputed T-Mobile's standing, the easement's validity, location, and scope, the existence of signal interference, and the extent of irreparable harm. They also presented declarations estimating that removal could require extensive structural work and tens of millions of dollars.
The superior court granted the injunction after a February 4, 2025 hearing, applied the heightened showing associated with mandatory relief, and ordered a $750,000 undertaking. It later denied Defendants' motion for reconsideration or dissolution and left the injunction and undertaking unchanged after receiving supplemental evidence about removal. Defendants appealed, arguing that conflicting evidence precluded preliminary relief, required a jury trial, and undermined the harm balancing and undertaking amount.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed. It explained that preliminary injunction review combines de novo review of legal principles, abuse-of-discretion review of the merits and interim-harm assessments, and substantial-evidence review of factual findings. Even though mandatory injunctions receive closer scrutiny, the appellate court does not reweigh evidence or revisit credibility determinations. The recorded easement, evidence of T-Mobile's succession and operational rights, and a preliminary title report showing that the easement encumbered the Ramallo property sufficiently supported the trial court's implicit findings.
The court rejected the contention that evidentiary conflicts required a jury trial before a preliminary injunction could issue. The authorities Defendants cited concerned permanent relief or different procedural settings, whereas provisional relief necessarily permits the trial court to resolve conflicts in declarations. The court also found that the trial court expressly balanced the harms: it discounted projected revenue from an unopened hotel, considered the importance of rural telecommunications and emergency services, and compared the uncertainty of T-Mobile's network workarounds with removal of the rooftop features.
The undertaking ruling likewise survived abuse-of-discretion review because the trial court found Defendants' multimillion-dollar estimates conclusory and unsupported, while T-Mobile offered contrary engineering evidence supporting a narrower removal project. Finally, the court disregarded arguments first presented in Defendants' appellate reply brief, including standing, evidentiary objections, reconsideration, and a narrower construction of the easement, because Defendants showed no good cause for omitting them from their opening brief. The order was affirmed, and T-Mobile was awarded costs on appeal.
Key Takeaways
- A recorded easement, succession evidence, and a preliminary title report provided substantial evidence supporting the preliminary finding that T-Mobile held enforceable easement rights.
- Conflicting declarations do not require a jury trial before a trial court may grant a preliminary injunction.
- The appellate court would not reweigh competing engineering and cost evidence concerning signal interference, removal work, or interim harms.
- The $750,000 undertaking was affirmed because the trial court could reject unsupported multimillion-dollar removal estimates and credit T-Mobile's contrary evidence.
- Arguments first raised in an appellate reply brief were forfeited absent good cause for failing to present them in the opening brief.
Why It Matters
The decision preserves provisional relief requiring alteration of a major construction project while emphasizing that appellate review does not turn a preliminary injunction record into a retrial of disputed facts. It illustrates how substantial-evidence and abuse-of-discretion principles apply to easement validity, interim harm, and security for an injunction.
The ruling also separates preliminary relief from final adjudication: the affirmed order addresses T-Mobile's likelihood of success and the interim balance of harms, not a final jury determination of the easement claims. The forfeiture discussion independently underscores the need to present each appellate argument properly in the opening brief.