California Code of Civil Procedure § 527(b): Temporary Restraining Order
(b) A temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction, or both, may be granted in a class action, in which one or more of the parties sues or defends for the benefit of numerous parties upon the same grounds as in other actions, whether or not the class has been certified.
(c) No temporary restraining order shall be granted without notice to the opposing party, unless both of the following requirements are satisfied:
(1) It appears from facts shown by affidavit or by the verified complaint that great or irreparable injury will result to the applicant before the matter can be heard on notice.
(2) The applicant or the applicant’s attorney certifies one of the following to the court under oath:
(A) That within a reasonable time prior to the application the applicant informed the opposing party or the opposing party’s attorney at what time and where the application would be made.
(B) That the applicant in good faith attempted but was unable to inform the opposing party and the opposing party’s attorney, specifying the efforts made to contact them.
(C) That for reasons specified the applicant should not be required to so inform the opposing party or the opposing party’s attorney.
(d) In case a temporary restraining order is granted without notice in the contingency specified in subdivision (c):
(1) The matter shall be made returnable on an order requiring cause to be shown why a preliminary injunction should not be granted, on the earliest day that the business of the court will admit of, but not later than 15 days or, if good cause appears to the court, 22 days from the date the temporary restraining order is issued.
(2) The party who obtained the temporary restraining order shall, within five days from the date the temporary restraining order is issued or two days prior to the hearing, whichever is earlier, serve on the opposing party a copy of the complaint if not previously served, the order to show cause stating the date, time, and place of the hearing, any affidavits to be used in the application, and a copy of the points and authorities in support of the application. The court may for good cause, on motion of the applicant or on its own motion, shorten the time required by this paragraph for service on the opposing party.
(3) When the matter first comes up for hearing, if the party who obtained the temporary restraining order is not ready to proceed, or if the party has failed to effect service as required by paragraph (2), the court shall dissolve the temporary restraining order.
(4) The opposing party is entitled to one continuance for a reasonable period of not less than 15 days or any shorter period requested by the opposing party, to enable the opposing party to meet the application for a preliminary injunction. If the opposing party obtains a continuance under this paragraph, the temporary restraining order shall remain in effect until the date of the continued hearing.
(5) Upon the filing of an affidavit by the applicant that the opposing party could not be served within the time required by paragraph (2), the court may reissue any temporary restraining order previously issued. The reissued order shall be made returnable as provided by paragraph (1), with the time for hearing measured from the date of reissuance. No fee shall be charged for reissuing the order.
(e) The opposing party may, in response to an order to show cause, present affidavits relating to the granting of the preliminary injunction, and if the affidavits are served on the applicant at least two days prior to the hearing, the applicant shall not be entitled to any continuance on account thereof. On the day the order is made returnable, the hearing shall take precedence over all other matters on the calendar of the day, except older matters of the same character, and matters to which special precedence may be given by law. When the cause is at issue it shall be set for trial at the earliest possible date and shall take precedence over all other cases, except older matters of the same character, and matters to which special precedence may be given by law.
(f) Notwithstanding failure to satisfy the time requirements of this section, the court may nonetheless hear the order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not be granted if the moving and supporting papers are served within the time required by Section 1005 and one of the following conditions is satisfied:
(1) The order to show cause is issued without a temporary restraining order.
(2) The order to show cause is issued with a temporary restraining order, but is either not set for hearing within the time required by paragraph (1) of subdivision (d), or the party who obtained the temporary restraining order fails to effect service within the time required by paragraph (2) of subdivision (d).
(g) This section does not apply to an order issued under the Family Code.
(h) As used in this section:
(1) “Complaint” means a complaint or a cross-complaint.
(2) “Court” means the court in which the action is pending.(Amended by Stats. 2000, Ch. 688, Sec. 4. Effective January 1, 2001.)
You have the right to receive assistance from a restraining order lawyer regarding legal matters.
Related Articles
View All Posts
E-bikes are gaining popularity across California, offering an efficient and eco-friendly way to get around. But with the rise in usage, the number of e-bike injury incidents involving both riders and pedestrians has also grown. If you’ve been injured while riding an e-bike—or struck by one—you need to take swift action to protect your health and your legal rights. Here's what to do immediately after an injury accident in California
Step 1: Get Medical Attention for Your E-Bike Injury
Your health should always come first. After an e-bike injury, call 911 or go to the nearest emergency room, even if you feel okay. Some injuries, such as concussions or internal bleeding, may not show immediate symptoms.
Seeing a doctor promptly not only protects your health but also creates a medical record that can be critical if you decide to pursue a legal claim.
Step 2: Report the E-Bike Injury to the Police
Call local law enforcement to report the accident. In California, any collision involving injury or property damage must be documented. The responding officer will create an official police report.
Be clear and honest when giving your statement. Make sure you ask how to obtain a copy of the report. It will serve as important evidence in your case.
Step 3: Preserve Evidence—Don’t Disturb the Scene
In any e-bike injury case, preserving the accident scene is critical. If you are physically able, avoid moving the e-bike, other vehicles, or debris until authorities arrive. This helps investigators document the scene accurately.
Take photographs or videos of:
- Damaged e-bikes or vehicles
- Skid marks and debris
- Traffic signs or signals
- Visible injuries
- Your location relative to the road or sidewalk
If you're unable to take photos yourself, ask a witness or bystander to help. Never clean up or move items until the scene is documented.
Step 4: Collect Witness Statements After an E-Bike Injury
Witnesses can play a key role in verifying your version of events. If anyone saw the crash, ask them for:
- Full name
- Contact information
- A brief statement of what they saw
Eyewitness accounts are especially helpful in e-bike injury cases involving disputes over right of way, sidewalk use, or rider negligence.
Step 5: Document Your Injuries and Financial Losses
Keep records of everything related to your e-bike injury, including:
- Photos of injuries
- Doctor’s notes
- Prescriptions
- Physical therapy sessions
- Time missed from work
- Property damage (e.g., broken phones, cracked helmets, damaged e-bike)
Hold on to all bills, receipts, and repair estimates. This documentation will help build your case and support your claim for compensation.
Step 6: Don’t Speak to Insurers Without Legal Help
After an e-bike injury, insurance companies may contact you for a statement. Don’t provide one without first consulting a lawyer. Insurers often try to minimize payouts or shift blame.
At KAASS LAW, we deal with insurance adjusters on your behalf. We make sure your rights are protected and help you pursue fair compensation.
Step 7: Understand Liability in an E-Bike Injury Case
Determining fault is key in any e-bike injury case. Liability may fall on:
- A negligent e-bike rider
- A driver who hit a rider
- The city has hazardous road conditions
- An e-bike manufacturer is experiencing equipment failure
A personal injury attorney can help investigate the cause, gather evidence, and identify all responsible parties.
Common Causes of E-Bike Injury in California
Here are the common causes of e-bike injury for both riders and pedestrians:
- Reckless or speeding riders
- Riding on sidewalks or pedestrian paths
- Distracted riding or driving
- Mechanical failures (brakes, tires, batteries)
- Dooring accidents from parked vehicles
- Failure to yield at crosswalks or stop signs
If negligence was involved, you may be eligible for compensation for your injuries and damages.
Know Your Rights After
California law provides legal options for victims of injury accidents. Whether you're a rider or a pedestrian, you have the right to seek damages if someone else was at fault.
Visit our Personal Injury and Bicycle Accident Lawyer pages to learn more about your rights and how KAASS LAW can help.
When to Contact an Attorney
Don't wait to speak with a qualified attorney if you’ve suffered an injury in California. At KAASS LAW, we assist victims in gathering evidence, filing claims, and securing the compensation they deserve.
We offer free consultations and work on a contingency fee basis, meaning you pay nothing unless we win your case.
E-Bike Safety Resources
Visit the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to learn more about e-bike safety, traffic laws, and accident prevention. This reputable resource offers valuable guidance for both riders and motorists.
Call KAASS LAW Today for Help With Your E-Bike Injury Case
If you or a loved one has been involved in an e-bike injury accident—whether as a rider or a pedestrian—you don’t have to face the aftermath alone. The legal team at KAASS LAW is here to help you understand your rights, gather critical evidence, and pursue the compensation you deserve.
Our experienced California personal injury attorneys have successfully represented clients in a wide range of transportation-related accident cases. We are committed to holding negligent parties accountable and helping you get the justice you need to move forward. Call us today at (310) 943-1171 or visit kaass.com to schedule your consultation.
What Are California's Clean Car Rules?
Clean Car rules refer to California's vehicle emission standards aimed at reducing air pollution and greenhouse gases. These rules come from the California Air Resources Board (CARB). They require automakers to cut tailpipe emissions and produce zero-emission vehicles like electric or hydrogen-powered cars.
California's program is stricter than federal rules. Over a dozen other states have adopted these standards under Section 177 of the Clean Air Act.
Legal Challenge to Clean Car Standards Gains Traction
Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed a lawsuit against California’s Clean Car rules to move forward. This case was brought by Republican-led states and industry groups. They claim that California's authority to set its own emission rules is unconstitutional.
The main argument revolves around the federal Clean Air Act. It allows California to request a waiver to impose stricter standards. The plaintiffs argue that these waivers create confusion and impose unfair burdens on car manufacturers. Automakers must then meet both federal and California standards.
Supreme Court Declines to Block the Case
The Supreme Court did not rule on the lawsuit’s outcome. Instead, it simply allowed the case to continue in lower courts. This reverses earlier decisions that blocked the case on jurisdictional grounds.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta has promised to defend the rules. Environmental groups also support the Clean Car program, citing public health and climate benefits.
What This Means for Automakers and Consumers
If the challenge succeeds, California might lose its power to enforce stricter emissions rules. Automakers would likely reduce investments in zero-emission vehicles for the California market.
Consumers could see fewer Clean Car options and increased vehicle emissions. If California wins, the state could continue shaping national clean vehicle policy and technology.
Environmental and Health Impacts
Clean Car standards are about more than climate change. They address serious public health concerns. Vehicle emissions worsen smog and trigger asthma and heart conditions, especially in cities.
California suffers from some of the worst air pollution in the U.S. Areas like Los Angeles and the Central Valley are most affected. Clean Car rules aim to reduce the harm caused by millions of vehicles.
To learn more about vehicle pollution and public health, visit the Environmental Defense Fund.
Legal Battle Over State vs. Federal Power
This lawsuit raises big questions about federalism. Should California be able to set stricter rules than the federal government?
The Clean Air Act gives California the right to apply for waivers. That’s because the state has struggled with air pollution for decades.
Opponents argue these waivers give California too much control over national markets. Supporters say they drive innovation and protect public health.
The Trump administration revoked California’s waiver. President Biden later restored it. The back-and-forth has led to legal uncertainty.
Clean Car Standards Drive the Electric Vehicle Future
No matter how this case ends, the shift toward electric vehicles (EVs) is underway. Automakers like Tesla, Ford, and GM are heavily investing in EVs.
Clean Car rules helped build charging infrastructure and encouraged EV adoption. Weakening these rules might slow progress. But market forces and climate goals will likely keep the EV transition moving forward.
KAASS LAW’s Legal Insight
At KAASS LAW, we closely track cases like the Clean Car challenge. Environmental laws affect businesses, consumers, and government entities alike. Our attorneys are ready to help you understand and respond to these legal changes.
Visit our Business Law page to learn how we assist clients with compliance and litigation. We also handle Lawsuits and Litigation in various sectors, including environmental matters.
What Happens Next?
The case returns to lower courts for full litigation. Both sides will present their arguments. A final decision may take years.
Until then, Clean Car standards remain active. Automakers, regulators, and environmental groups will be watching closely. The ruling could reshape national clean air policy.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s action allows a high-stakes lawsuit against California’s Clean Car rules to move forward. The outcome will affect state powers, public health, and the auto industry.
Whether you’re a business, consumer, or policymaker, the decisions made in this case could impact you. Contact KAASS LAW to learn how we can help you navigate these evolving legal landscapes.
California positioned itself as a leader in reproductive rights by passing legislation that would expand IVF access through mandated insurance coverage. However, a recent amendment to the law has delayed its implementation from 2025 to 2026. This decision has left many prospective parents feeling abandoned, financially overwhelmed, and unsure of their next steps.
At KAASS LAW, we help individuals and couples navigate the complex legal and insurance systems tied to fertility treatments. In this post, we examine what California’s delayed IVF law means and what options remain available for those affected.
IVF Access Law: What California Promised
The law aimed to increase IVF access by requiring most health insurance plans in California to cover in vitro fertilization. Governor Gavin Newsom signed the law in October 2023, with the original start date set for January 1, 2025.
Specifically, the law:
- Defined infertility as a disease
- Required insurance providers to cover diagnosis and treatment, including IVF
- Applied to both employer-sponsored and individual health plans
By removing cost barriers, the state hoped to give more people the chance to build families through assisted reproductive technologies. However, legislators have now pushed the effective date to January 1, 2026.
IVF Access Delay: Real-World Consequences
This delay affects more than just policy—it impacts lives. IVF success rates often depend on timing. A one-year wait can lower success rates, especially for individuals over 35 or those with medical conditions.
Here’s what the delay means for patients:
- Insurance companies are not legally required to provide IVF coverage until 2026
- Individuals must continue paying out-of-pocket or rely on plans that offer voluntary benefits
- Delayed access may force some patients to postpone or abandon fertility plans entirely
People now face added stress, high treatment costs, and fewer alternatives. While the law’s delay may serve administrative needs, it introduces serious emotional and financial challenges for families.
If you’ve been denied fertility-related benefits or misled by your insurer, KAASS LAW can help you understand your rights. Visit our insurance claim disputes page for support.
Why Lawmakers Delayed IVF Access
California lawmakers claimed that insurers and state regulators needed more time to implement the IVF mandate. Insurance companies argued that they required time to update policies, calculate cost impacts, and train staff.
Supporters of the delay believe that a smoother rollout will ultimately help everyone. But many reproductive health advocates disagree. They argue that the delay prioritizes bureaucracy over people who have waited long enough.
Fertility treatment is not a luxury—it is a medical necessity for thousands. Lawmakers must balance administrative readiness with real human needs.
To read more about the recent delay, visit this Los Angeles Times article
Understanding the Legal Landscape of Reproductive Rights
California typically leads the way in protecting reproductive rights. While states like Alabama and Tennessee restrict IVF and other treatments, California’s legislation represents progress. However, delays like this reveal gaps between legal promises and practical realities.
Patients still lack guaranteed access to IVF, even though the law exists. Until full implementation occurs, patients must rely on employer benefits, personal savings, or outside funding sources.
At KAASS LAW, we support clients facing legal and insurance hurdles related to healthcare. If your insurance policy misrepresents its fertility benefits or denies a valid claim, we’re ready to act. Explore our healthcare law services for more information.
What You Can Do While Waiting for Coverage
Even though the law won’t take effect until 2026, there are still actions you can take right now to protect your family-building journey:
1. Check your current coverage
Review your plan’s benefits and exclusions. Some employer-sponsored plans may offer IVF coverage voluntarily.
2. Ask your HR department or broker
Employers can modify group health plans at any time. If you’re part of a large organization, collective requests for fertility coverage may influence change.
3. Apply for fertility grants
Several nonprofits provide financial assistance for IVF. Clinics may also offer payment plans, refunds for unsuccessful cycles, or package pricing.
4. Document insurance interactions
Save emails, letters, and notes from calls with insurance reps. If your benefits are misrepresented or claims are wrongly denied, legal action may be possible.
5. Contact a fertility law attorney
You don’t need to navigate this alone. Attorneys experienced in insurance and healthcare law, like the team at KAASS LAW, can evaluate your situation and suggest the best next steps.
KAASS LAW Supports IVF Patients and Families
Fertility issues can be deeply personal and legally complex. The delayed IVF access law adds another layer of difficulty to an already overwhelming process. Our attorneys work with clients to resolve disputes involving:
- Denied insurance claims for IVF or other reproductive procedures
- Failure to disclose policy limits or exclusions
- Misleading marketing materials related to fertility coverage
- Delays or denials based on age, gender, or medical history
We take a proactive approach to insurance disputes. Whether you need help appealing a denial or filing a legal complaint, KAASS LAW stands by your side throughout the process.
IVF Access Can’t Wait
Delaying IVF access might serve short-term policy goals, but it harms real people today. Fertility doesn’t pause for bureaucratic processes, and neither should your ability to receive care. California made a bold promise by passing this law. Now, the state must ensure its timely and effective implementation.
In the meantime, patients deserve accurate information, strong legal protections, and affordable options. At KAASS LAW, we are committed to helping families overcome the legal and financial barriers that stand between them and their dreams of parenthood.
If you believe your rights have been violated or your insurer acted in bad faith, contact us today. Let’s work together to protect your future.
