California Codes

Cal. Labor Code § 1138.1 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)No court of this state shall have authority to issue a temporary or permanent injunction in any case involving or growing out of a labor dispute, except after hearing the testimony of witnesses in open court, with opportunity for cross-examination, in support of the allegations of a complaint made under oath, and testimony in opposition thereto, if offered, and except after findings of fact by the court, of all of the following:

(1)That unlawful acts have been threatened and will be committed unless restrained or have been committed and will be continued unless restrained, but no injunction or temporary restraining order shall be issued on account of any threat or unlawful act excepting against the person or persons, association, or organization making the threat or committing the unlawful act or actually authorized those acts.

(2)That substantial and irreparable injury to complainant’s property will follow.

(3)That as to each item of relief granted greater injury will be inflicted upon complainant by the denial of relief than will be inflicted upon defendants by the granting of relief.

(4)That complainant has no adequate remedy at law.

(5)That the public officers charged with the duty to protect complainant’s property are unable or unwilling to furnish adequate protection.

(b)The hearing shall be held after due and personal notice thereof has been given, in the manner that the court shall direct, to all known persons against whom relief is sought, and also to the chief of those public officials of the county and city within which the unlawful acts have been threatened or committed charged with the duty to protect complainant’s property. However, if a complainant also alleges that, unless a temporary restraining order is issued without notice, a substantial and irreparable injury to complainant’s property will be unavoidable, such a temporary restraining order may be issued upon testimony under oath, sufficient, if sustained, to justify the court in issuing a temporary injunction upon a hearing after notice. Such a temporary restraining order shall be effective for no longer than five days and shall become void at the expiration of those five days. No temporary restraining order shall be issued unless the judicial officer issuing the temporary restraining order first hears oral argument from the opposing party or opposing party’s attorney, except in the instances specified in subparagraphs (B) and (C) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 527 of the Code of Civil Procedure. No temporary restraining order or temporary injunction shall be issued except on the condition that the complainant first files an undertaking with adequate security in an amount to be fixed by the court sufficient to recompense those enjoined for any loss, expense, or damage caused by the improvident or erroneous issuance of the order or injunction, including all reasonable costs, together with a reasonable attorney’s fee, and expense of defense against the order or against the granting of any injunctive relief sought in the same proceeding and subsequently denied by the court.

(c)The undertaking shall be an agreement entered into by the complainant and the surety upon which a decree may be rendered in the same suit or proceeding against the complainant and surety, upon a hearing to assess damages of which hearing the complainant and surety shall have reasonable notice, the complainant and surety submitting themselves to the jurisdiction of the court for that purpose. Nothing contained in this section shall deprive any party having a claim or cause of action under or upon such undertaking from electing to pursue his or her ordinary remedy by suit at law or in equity.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 10 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2000–2025 · leading case: Retail Prop. Trust v. United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am., 768 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2014).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Retail Prop. Trust v. United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am., 768 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2014). · cites it 5× “It again included claims for trespass, private nuisance, and injunctive relief for unlawful acts by a union pursuant to California Labor Code § 1138.1, which specifies the requirements for a court to issue an injunction “in any case involving or growing out of a labor dispute.”

Ralphs Grocery Co. v. United Food & Com. Workers Union Local 8, 186 Cal. App. 4th 1078 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 15× “) Without referring to the Moscone Act, Labor Code section 1138.1 restricts the authority of the courts to issue a preliminary or permanent injunction in a case involving a labor dispute.”

Ralphs Grocery Co. v. United Food & Com. Workers Union Local 8, 290 P.3d 1116 (Cal. 2012). “‖ (Lab. Code, § 1138.1, subd. (a).) Importantly, the statutory restraints on labor injunctions do not leave employers without a remedy for unlawful activity.”

United Food & Commerial Workers Union, Local 324 v. Superior Court, 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7347 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000). “” (Lab. Code, § 1138.1, subd. (a)(5).) 2 In resisting summary judgment, Gigante failed to make a showing that law enforcement is unable or unwilling to furnish adequate protection.”

Hendrix v. Deane CA2/5 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “Bils requested time to respond and file a motion to strike on the basis that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Labor, Management, and Relations Act, and because Hendrix’s claims relate to a labor dispute between two employees of the same labor union,…”

Cnty. of Contra Costa v. Pub. Employees Union Local One, 163 Cal. App. 4th 139 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 3× “Labor Code section 1138.1, subdivision (a), provides: "No court of this state shall have authority to issue a temporary or permanent injunction in any case involving or growing out of a labor dispute, except after hearing the testimony of witnesses in open court, with…”

Walmart v. United Food etc. Union (Cal. Ct. App. 2016). “oerce or restrain employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights, that claim was not identical to the 10 This is confirmed by the issues raised in the parties’ post-hearing briefs: Whether Walmart had exclusive possession of its stores sufficient to be able to obtain an…”

Walmart Stores, Inc. v. United Food & Com. Workers Int'l Union, 204 Cal. Rptr. 3d 266 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2016). “) This is confirmed by the issues raised in the parties' post-hearing briefs: Whether Walmart had exclusive possession of its stores sufficient to be able to obtain an injunction for trespass, and whether Walmart made an adequate showing to secure injunctive relief under…”

Smart & Final Logistics v. Teamsters Local 630 CA4/3 (Cal. Ct. App. 2025). “The Union challenges the order issuing the preliminary injunction, arguing insufficient evidence supports the court’s statutorily required findings there existed a threat of unlawful future conduct that will be committed unless restrained (Lab. Code, § 1138.1, subd. (a)(1));…”

Ralphs Grocery Co. v. U. Food & Com. Workers Union CA5 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013). “) Labor Code section 1138.1, subdivision (a), enacted in 1999, provides, in part: “No court of this state shall have authority to issue a temporary or permanent injunction in any case involving or growing out of a labor dispute, except after hearing the testimony of witnesses in…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.