potential-merit and interim-harm factors in California

2026Gallo v. Acuna (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1090, 1109 (Acuna).) The trial court is “guided by a ‘mix’ of the potential-merit and interim-harm factors; the greater the plaintiff’s showing on one, the less must be shown on the other to support an injunction. [Citation.]” (Butt v. State of California (1992) 4 Cal.4th 668, 678 (Butt).) A preliminary injunction, however, may 11 not issue, “regardless of the balance of interim harm, unless there is some possibility that the plaintiff would ultimately prevail on the merits of the claim. [Citation.]” (Ibid.) An order granting or denying a preliminary injunction

2025NO ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN DENYING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION “In deciding whether to issue a preliminary injunction, a court must weigh two ‘interrelated’ factors: (1) the likelihood that the moving party will ultimately prevail on the merits and (2) the relative interim harm to the parties from issuance or nonissuance of the injunction. […] ¶ The trial court’s determination must be guided by a ‘mix’ of the potential-merit and interim-harm factors; the greater the plaintiff’s showing on one, the less must be shown on the other to support the injunction. … A trial court may not grant a preliminary

2015(Common Cause v. Board of Supervisors (1989) 49 Cal.3d 432, 447 ; see Yu v. University of La Verne (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 779, 786-787 [order denying a motion for preliminary injunction should be affirmed if the trial court correctly found the moving party failed to satisfy either of the two factors].) 4 Appellate review of a trial court's order granting or denying a motion for preliminary injunction generally is "limited to whether the trial court's decision was an abuse of discretion." (Butt, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 678 ; see Yu v. University of La Verne, supra, 196 Cal.App.4th at pp. 786-787

2015(Common Cause v. Board of Supervisors (1989) 49 Cal.3d 432, 447 ; see Yu v. University of La Verne (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 779, 786-787 [order denying a motion for preliminary injunction should be affirmed if the trial court correctly found the moving party failed to satisfy either of the two factors].) 4 Appellate review of a trial court's order granting or denying a motion for preliminary injunction generally is "limited to whether the trial court's decision was an abuse of discretion." (Butt, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 678 ; see Yu v. University of La Verne, supra, 196 Cal.App.4th at pp. 786-787

2026Gallo v. Acuna (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1090, 1109 (Acuna).) The trial court is “guided by a ‘mix’ of the potential-merit and interim-harm factors; the greater the plaintiff’s showing on one, the less must be shown on the other to support an injunction. [Citation.]” (Butt v. State of California (1992) 4 Cal.4th 668, 678 (Butt).) A preliminary injunction, however, may 11 not issue, “regardless of the balance of interim harm, unless there is some possibility that the plaintiff would ultimately prevail on the merits of the claim. [Citation.]” (Ibid.) An order granting or denying a preliminary injunction

2026Gallo v. Acuna (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1090, 1109 (Acuna).) The trial court is “guided by a ‘mix’ of the potential-merit and interim-harm factors; the greater the plaintiff’s showing on one, the less must be shown on the other to support an injunction. [Citation.]” (Butt v. State of California (1992) 4 Cal.4th 668, 678 (Butt).) A preliminary injunction, however, may 11 not issue, “regardless of the balance of interim harm, unless there is some possibility that the plaintiff would ultimately prevail on the merits of the claim. [Citation.]” (Ibid.) An order granting or denying a preliminary injunction

2015The second is the interim harm that the plaintiff is likely to sustain if the injunction were denied compared to the harm that the defendant is likely to suffer if the preliminary injunction were issued." (IT Corp. v. County of Imperial (1983) 35 Cal.3d 63, 69-70 .) "The ultimate goal of any test to be used in deciding whether a preliminary injunction should issue is to minimize the harm which an erroneous interim decision may cause." (Id. at p. 73.) "The trial court's determination must be guided by a 'mix' of the potential merit and interim-harm factors; the greater the plaintiff's showing o

2013The second is the interim harm that the plaintiff is likely to sustain if the injunction were denied as compared to the harm that the defendant is likely to suffer if the preliminary injunction were issued. [Citations.]” (IT Corp. v. County of Imperial (1983) 35 Cal.3d 63 , 69–70.) “The trial court’s determination must be guided by a ‘mix’ of the potential-merit and interim-harm factors; the greater the plaintiff’s showing on one, the less must be shown on the other to support an injunction. [Citation.]” (Butt v. State of California (1992) 4 Cal.4th 668, 678 .) Nonetheless, “[a] trial court ma

2026Gallo v. Acuna (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1090, 1109 (Acuna).) The trial court is “guided by a ‘mix’ of the potential-merit and interim-harm factors; the greater the plaintiff’s showing on one, the less must be shown on the other to support an injunction. [Citation.]” (Butt v. State of California (1992) 4 Cal.4th 668, 678 (Butt).) A preliminary injunction, however, may 11 not issue, “regardless of the balance of interim harm, unless there is some possibility that the plaintiff would ultimately prevail on the merits of the claim. [Citation.]” (Ibid.) An order granting or denying a preliminary injunction

2025Gallo v. Acuna (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1090, 1109 (Acuna).) The trial court is “guided by a ‘mix’ of the potential-merit and interim-harm factors; the greater the plaintiff’s showing on one, the less must be shown on the other to support an injunction. [Citation.]” (Butt v. State of California (1992) 4 Cal.4th 668, 678 (Butt).) A preliminary injunction, however, may 9 not issue, “regardless of the balance of interim harm, unless there is some possibility that the plaintiff would ultimately prevail on the merits of the claim. [Citation.]” (Ibid.) An order granting or denying a preliminary injunction

2022A. Applicable Law and Standard of Review for Preliminary Injunctions Granting Mandamus Relief “In deciding whether to issue a preliminary injunction, a trial court must evaluate two interrelated factors: (i) the likelihood that the party seeking the injunction will ultimately prevail on the merits of his claim, and (ii) the balance of harm presented, i.e., the comparative consequences of the issuance and nonissuance of the injunction.” (Common Cause v. Board of Supervisors (1989) 49 Cal.3d 432, 441-442 , fn. omitted (Common Cause); see Chase v. Wizmann (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 244 , 252; Midway V

1992Standard of review. (2) In deciding whether to issue a preliminary injunction, a court must weigh two "interrelated" factors: (1) the likelihood that the moving party *678 will ultimately prevail on the merits and (2) the relative interim harm to the parties from issuance or nonissuance of the injunction. ( Common Cause v. Board of Supervisors (1989) 49 Cal.3d 432, 441-442 [ 261 Cal. Rptr. 574 , 777 P.2d 610 ].) Appellate review is limited to whether the trial court's decision was an abuse of discretion. ( Cohen v. Board of Supervisors (1985) 40 Cal.3d 277, 286 [ 219 Cal. Rptr. 467 , 707 P.2d

2011Proc., § 904.1, subd. (a)(6).) “In deciding whether to issue a preliminary injunction, a court must weigh two ‘interrelated’ factors: (1) the likelihood that the moving party will ultimately prevail on the merits and (2) the relative interim harm to the parties from issuance or nonissuance of the injunction. [Citation.] ...[][] The trial court’s determination must be guided by a ‘mix’ of the potential-merit and interim-harm factors; the greater the plaintiff’s showing on one, the less must be shown on the other to support an injunction. [Citation.] Of course, ‘[t]he scope of available prelimin

2011Proc., § 904.1, subd. (a)(6).) “In deciding whether to issue a preliminary injunction, a court must weigh two ‘interrelated’ factors: (1) the likelihood that the moving party will ultimately prevail on the merits and (2) the relative interim harm to the parties from issuance or nonissuance of the injunction. [Citation.] ...[][] The trial court’s determination must be guided by a ‘mix’ of the potential-merit and interim-harm factors; the greater the plaintiff’s showing on one, the less must be shown on the other to support an injunction. [Citation.] Of course, ‘[t]he scope of available prelimin

2024Standard of Review “Our review of a preliminary injunction ‘may trigger any or all of the three standards of appellate review.’ [Citation.] The trial court’s evaluation and weighing of the parties’ likelihood of success on the merits and the balance of harm is reviewed for abuse of discretion. [Citation.] We review de novo the trial court’s application of legal principles and we review its findings of fact under the substantial evidence standard.” (Anderson v. County of Santa Barbara (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 554 , 568.) Under the abuse of discretion standard, “[t]he trial court’s determination mu

2021(Costa Mesa City Employees Assn. v. City of Costa Mesa (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 298, 305 [plaintiff must “‘present evidence of the irreparable injury or interim harm that it will suffer if an injunction is not issued pending an adjudication of the merits’”]; Choice-in-Education League v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 415, 422 [for the trial court to exercise its discretion to issue a preliminary injunction, “‘[t]he applicant must demonstrate a real threat of immediate and irreparable injury [citations] due to the inadequacy of legal remedies’”]; see Intel Corp. v. Hamidi

2023(Ibid.) “[A]s a general matter, the question whether a preliminary injunction should be granted involves two interrelated factors: (1) the likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits, and (2) the relative balance of harms that is likely to result from the granting or denial of interim injunctive relief.” (White v. Davis (2003) 30 Cal.4th 528, 554 ; see Butt v. State of California (1992) 4 Cal.4th 668 , 677–678.) Typically, the trial court’s evaluation of the relative balance of harms compares the interim harm the plaintiff is likely to sustain if the injunction is denied to the ha

2023(Ibid.) “[A]s a general matter, the question whether a preliminary injunction should be granted involves two interrelated factors: (1) the likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits, and (2) the relative balance of harms that is likely to result from the granting or denial of interim injunctive relief.” (White v. Davis (2003) 30 Cal.4th 528, 554 ; see Butt v. State of California (1992) 4 Cal.4th 668 , 677–678.) Typically, the trial court’s evaluation of the relative balance of harms compares the interim harm the plaintiff is likely to sustain if the injunction is denied to the ha

2023(See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.104(c)(2) [stating that “if the minute order directs that a written order be prepared, the entry date is the date the signed order is filed”].) 16 McDonald’s Corp. (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 860 , 866–867.) “ ‘The latter factor involves consideration of such things as the inadequacy of other remedies, the degree of irreparable harm, and the necessity of preserving the status quo.’ ” (Id. at p. 867.) “The trial court’s determination must be guided by a ‘mix’ of the potential-merit and interim-harm factors; the greater the plaintiff’s showing on one, the less must be

1992Standard of review. (2) In deciding whether to issue a preliminary injunction, a court must weigh two "interrelated" factors: (1) the likelihood that the moving party *678 will ultimately prevail on the merits and (2) the relative interim harm to the parties from issuance or nonissuance of the injunction. ( Common Cause v. Board of Supervisors (1989) 49 Cal.3d 432, 441-442 [ 261 Cal. Rptr. 574 , 777 P.2d 610 ].) Appellate review is limited to whether the trial court's decision was an abuse of discretion. ( Cohen v. Board of Supervisors (1985) 40 Cal.3d 277, 286 [ 219 Cal. Rptr. 467 , 707 P.2d

2021(Costa Mesa City Employees Assn. v. City of Costa Mesa (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 298, 305 [plaintiff must “‘present evidence of the irreparable injury or interim harm that it will suffer if an injunction is not issued pending an adjudication of the merits’”]; Choice-in-Education League v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 415, 422 [for the trial court to exercise its discretion to issue a preliminary injunction, “‘[t]he applicant must demonstrate a real threat of immediate and irreparable injury [citations] due to the inadequacy of legal remedies’”]; see Intel Corp. v. Hamidi

2021(Costa Mesa City Employees Assn. v. City of Costa Mesa (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 298, 305 [plaintiff must “‘present evidence of the irreparable injury or interim harm that it will suffer if an injunction is not issued pending an adjudication of the merits’”]; Choice-in-Education League v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 415, 422 [for the trial court to exercise its discretion to issue a preliminary injunction, “‘[t]he applicant must demonstrate a real threat of immediate and irreparable injury [citations] due to the inadequacy of legal remedies’”]; see Intel Corp. v. Hamidi

2021The second is the interim harm that the plaintiff is likely to sustain if the injunction were denied as compared to the harm that the defendant is likely to suffer if the preliminary injunction were issued.”’” (Amgen, at p. 731; accord, ITV Gurney Holding Inc. v. Gurney (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 22, 28-29 .) “‘“The trial court’s determination must be guided by a ‘mix’ of the potential-merit and interim-harm factors; the greater the plaintiff’s showing on one, the less must be shown on the other to 14 support an injunction.”’” (Jamison v. Department of Transportation (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 356, 361-3

2021The second is the interim harm that the plaintiff is likely to sustain if the injunction were denied as compared to the harm that the defendant is likely to suffer if the preliminary injunction were issued.”’” (Amgen, at p. 731; accord, ITV Gurney Holding Inc. v. Gurney (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 22, 28-29 .) “‘“The trial court’s determination must be guided by a ‘mix’ of the potential-merit and interim-harm factors; the greater the plaintiff’s showing on one, the less must be shown on the other to 14 support an injunction.”’” (Jamison v. Department of Transportation (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 356, 361-3

2021(Costa Mesa City Employees Assn. v. City of Costa Mesa (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 298, 305 [plaintiff must “‘present evidence of the irreparable injury or interim harm that it will suffer if an injunction is not issued pending an adjudication of the merits’”]; Choice-in-Education League v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 415, 422 [for the trial court to exercise its discretion to issue a preliminary injunction, “‘[t]he applicant must demonstrate a real threat of immediate and irreparable injury [citations] due to the inadequacy of legal remedies’”]; see Intel Corp. v. Hamidi

2021(Costa Mesa City Employees Assn. v. City of Costa Mesa (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 298, 305 [plaintiff must “‘present evidence of the irreparable injury or interim harm that it will suffer if an injunction is not issued pending an adjudication of the merits’”]; Choice-in-Education League v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 415, 422 [for the trial court to exercise its discretion to issue a preliminary injunction, “‘[t]he applicant must demonstrate a real threat of immediate and irreparable injury [citations] due to the inadequacy of legal remedies’”]; see Intel Corp. v. Hamidi

2024Standard of Review “Our review of a preliminary injunction ‘may trigger any or all of the three standards of appellate review.’ [Citation.] The trial court’s evaluation and weighing of the parties’ likelihood of success on the merits and the balance of harm is reviewed for abuse of discretion. [Citation.] We review de novo the trial court’s application of legal principles and we review its findings of fact under the substantial evidence standard.” (Anderson v. County of Santa Barbara (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 554 , 568.) Under the abuse of discretion standard, “[t]he trial court’s determination mu

2011Proc., § 904.1, subd. (a)(6).) “In deciding whether to issue a preliminary injunction, a court must weigh two ‘interrelated’ factors: (1) the likelihood that the moving party will ultimately prevail on the merits and (2) the relative interim harm to the parties from issuance or nonissuance of the injunction. [Citation.] ...[][] The trial court’s determination must be guided by a ‘mix’ of the potential-merit and interim-harm factors; the greater the plaintiff’s showing on one, the less must be shown on the other to support an injunction. [Citation.] Of course, ‘[t]he scope of available prelimin

2021Test for Issuance of Preliminary Injunction and Standard of Review “In deciding whether to issue a preliminary injunction, a court must weigh two ‘interrelated’ factors: (1) the likelihood that the moving party will ultimately prevail on the merits and (2) the relative interim harm to the parties from issuance or nonissuance of the injunction. [Citation.] . . . [¶] The trial court’s determination must be guided by a ‘mix’ of the potential- merit and interim-harm factors; the greater the plaintiff’s 5 showing on one, the less must be shown on the other to support an injunction. [Citation.]” (Bu

1992Standard of review. (2) In deciding whether to issue a preliminary injunction, a court must weigh two "interrelated" factors: (1) the likelihood that the moving party *678 will ultimately prevail on the merits and (2) the relative interim harm to the parties from issuance or nonissuance of the injunction. ( Common Cause v. Board of Supervisors (1989) 49 Cal.3d 432, 441-442 [ 261 Cal. Rptr. 574 , 777 P.2d 610 ].) Appellate review is limited to whether the trial court's decision was an abuse of discretion. ( Cohen v. Board of Supervisors (1985) 40 Cal.3d 277, 286 [ 219 Cal. Rptr. 467 , 707 P.2d

2024Standard of Review “Our review of a preliminary injunction ‘may trigger any or all of the three standards of appellate review.’ [Citation.] The trial court’s evaluation and weighing of the parties’ likelihood of success on the merits and the balance of harm is reviewed for abuse of discretion. [Citation.] We review de novo the trial court’s application of legal principles and we review its findings of fact under the substantial evidence standard.” (Anderson v. County of Santa Barbara (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 554 , 568.) Under the abuse of discretion standard, “[t]he trial court’s determination mu

2023Gallo v. Acuna (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1090, 1109 ; see also Teachers Insurance & Annuity Assn. v. Furlotti (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1487, 1493 [“The decision [to grant a preliminary injunction] will only be reversed when the trial court has abused its discretion as to either factor.”].) “Notwithstanding the applicability of the abuse of discretion standard of review, the specific determinations underlying the superior court’s decision are subject to appellate scrutiny under the standard of review appropriate to that type of determination.” (Smith v. Adventist Health System/West (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th

2023Herrera v. Stender (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 614, 629 (Stender).) Our review on appeal “is limited to whether the trial court’s decision was an abuse of discretion. [Citation.]” (Butt, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 678 .) “The party challenging the superior court’s order has the burden of making a 12 clear showing of such an abuse.” (Smith v. Adventist Health System/West (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 729, 739 .) “[W]e do not reweigh conflicting evidence or assess the credibility of witnesses; we only determine whether, interpreting the facts in the light most favorable to the prevailing party and indulging all

2023Herrera v. Stender (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 614, 629 (Stender).) Our review on appeal “is limited to whether the trial court’s decision was an abuse of discretion. [Citation.]” (Butt, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 678 .) “The party challenging the superior court’s order has the burden of making a 12 clear showing of such an abuse.” (Smith v. Adventist Health System/West (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 729, 739 .) “[W]e do not reweigh conflicting evidence or assess the credibility of witnesses; we only determine whether, interpreting the facts in the light most favorable to the prevailing party and indulging all

2021Test for Issuance of Preliminary Injunction and Standard of Review “In deciding whether to issue a preliminary injunction, a court must weigh two ‘interrelated’ factors: (1) the likelihood that the moving party will ultimately prevail on the merits and (2) the relative interim harm to the parties from issuance or nonissuance of the injunction. [Citation.] . . . [¶] The trial court’s determination must be guided by a ‘mix’ of the potential- merit and interim-harm factors; the greater the plaintiff’s 5 showing on one, the less must be shown on the other to support an injunction. [Citation.]” (Bu

2021(See 14859 Moorpark, supra, 63 Cal.App.4th at p. 1402 .) However, a “trial court may not grant a preliminary injunction, regardless of the balance of interim harm, unless there is some possibility that the plaintiff would ultimately prevail on the merits of the claim.” (Butt, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 678 .) “Generally, the ruling on an application for a preliminary injunction rests in the sound discretion of the trial court.

2013Co. (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 504, 512 [ 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 578 ].) B.

2013Co. (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 504, 512 [ 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 578 ].) B.

2012Exchange (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1415, 1422-1423 [ 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 741 ].) When a preliminary injunction is requested, “[t]he trial court’s determination must be guided by a ‘mix’ of the potential-merit and interim-harm factors; the greater the plaintiff’s showing on one, the less must be shown on the other to support an injunction.” (Butt v. State of California (1992) 4 Cal.4th 668, 678 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 480 , 842 P.2d 1240 ].) As plaintiff says, the purpose of a preliminary injunction under the UFTA is to prevent “further disposition by the debtor or a transferee, or both, of the asset transferr

2012Exchange (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1415, 1422-1423 [ 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 741 ].) When a preliminary injunction is requested, “[t]he trial court’s determination must be guided by a ‘mix’ of the potential-merit and interim-harm factors; the greater the plaintiff’s showing on one, the less must be shown on the other to support an injunction.” (Butt v. State of California (1992) 4 Cal.4th 668, 678 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 480 , 842 P.2d 1240 ].) As plaintiff says, the purpose of a preliminary injunction under the UFTA is to prevent “further disposition by the debtor or a transferee, or both, of the asset transferr

2008Grounds for an Injunction The decision to issue a preliminary injunction requires that the court weigh two factors: “the likelihood the moving party will ultimately prevail on the merits, and the relative interim harm to the parties from the issuance or nonissuance of the injunction.” (Hunt v. Superior Court (1999) 21 Cal.4th 984, 999 [ 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 236 , 987 P.2d 705 ].) “The trial court’s determination must be guided by a ‘mix’ of the potential-merit and interim-harm factors; the greater the plaintiff’s showing on one, the less must be shown on the other to support an injunction.” (Butt v.

2008Grounds for an Injunction The decision to issue a preliminary injunction requires that the court weigh two factors: “the likelihood the moving party will ultimately prevail on the merits, and the relative interim harm to the parties from the issuance or nonissuance of the injunction.” (Hunt v. Superior Court (1999) 21 Cal.4th 984, 999 [ 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 236 , 987 P.2d 705 ].) “The trial court’s determination must be guided by a ‘mix’ of the potential-merit and interim-harm factors; the greater the plaintiff’s showing on one, the less must be shown on the other to support an injunction.” (Butt v.

2006Discussion A. Standard of Review “In deciding whether to issue a preliminary injunction, a court must weigh two ‘interrelated’ factors: (1) the likelihood that the moving party will ultimately prevail on the merits and (2) the relative interim harm to the parties from issuance or nonissuance of the injunction. [Citation.] Appellate review is limited to whether the trial court’s decision was an abuse of discretion. [Citation.] [][] The trial court’s determination must be guided by a ‘mix’ of the potential-merit and interim-harm factors; the greater the plaintiff’s showing on one, the less must

2006Discussion A. Standard of Review “In deciding whether to issue a preliminary injunction, a court must weigh two ‘interrelated’ factors: (1) the likelihood that the moving party will ultimately prevail on the merits and (2) the relative interim harm to the parties from issuance or nonissuance of the injunction. [Citation.] Appellate review is limited to whether the trial court’s decision was an abuse of discretion. [Citation.] [][] The trial court’s determination must be guided by a ‘mix’ of the potential-merit and interim-harm factors; the greater the plaintiff’s showing on one, the less must

2006Discussion A. Standard of Review “In deciding whether to issue a preliminary injunction, a court must weigh two ‘interrelated’ factors: (1) the likelihood that the moving party will ultimately prevail on the merits and (2) the relative interim harm to the parties from issuance or nonissuance of the injunction. [Citation.] Appellate review is limited to whether the trial court’s decision was an abuse of discretion. [Citation.] [][] The trial court’s determination must be guided by a ‘mix’ of the potential-merit and interim-harm factors; the greater the plaintiff’s showing on one, the less must

2006Discussion A. Standard of Review “In deciding whether to issue a preliminary injunction, a court must weigh two ‘interrelated’ factors: (1) the likelihood that the moving party will ultimately prevail on the merits and (2) the relative interim harm to the parties from issuance or nonissuance of the injunction. [Citation.] Appellate review is limited to whether the trial court’s decision was an abuse of discretion. [Citation.] [][] The trial court’s determination must be guided by a ‘mix’ of the potential-merit and interim-harm factors; the greater the plaintiff’s showing on one, the less must