Although the underlying action here is one of breach of contract, the trial court did not reach the final merits of that claim, which is merely ancillary to the main issue in this appeal. See City of Waycross v. Pierce County Bd. of Commrs., 300 Ga. 109, 112 (1), 793 S.E.2d 389 (2016) (stressing that a trial court's finding of a substantial likelihood of success on the merits is not the determining factor in balancing the relative equities of the parties and that it also is not the same as a showing of ultimate success on the merits); Byelick v. Michel Herbelin USA , Inc. , 275 Ga. 505, 506-07 (2), 570 S.E.2d 307 (2002) ("The purpose of an interlocutory injunction is preliminary and preparatory; it looks to a future final hearing, and while contemplating what the result of that hearing may be , it does not settle what it shall be. " (emphasis in original; citation and punctuation omitted))

(citations and punctuation omitted). We are mindful that we generally presume that the trial court performed its duties, Byelick v. Michel Herbelin USA, Inc. , 275 Ga. 505, 507 (3), 570 S.E.2d 307 (2002), but where the trial court did not rule on the pending motion to exclude, did not mention the admissibility of the expert's testimony, and explicitly stated that it was considering the motion for summary judgment, we cannot say with certainty that the trial court conducted the proper Daubert analysis. Judgment vacated and case remanded with instruction.

Franklin v. Sing–Wilkes, Inc., 215 Ga. 596, 597(1), 112 S.E.2d 618 (1960) (where evidence is conflicting, “it can not be said that the court abused its discretion in either granting or denying the injunction”). As in Byelick v. Michel Herbelin USA, 275 Ga. 505(1), 570 S.E.2d 307 (2002), whatever the merit of Grossi's claim that it became a joint venturer with Sterling or otherwise obtained an ownership interest in the business of dinarbanker.com, there is evidence in the record that Grossi came into possession and control of the business assets in its capacity as a contractor for Sterling Currency Group. The trial court was authorized to credit this evidence, and thus, the status quo was Sterling's possession of and control over dinarbanker.com and the business assets.

A trial court has broad discretion in deciding whether to grant an interlocutory injunction. Byelick v. Michel Herbelin USA, 275 Ga. 505(1), 570 S.E.2d 307 (2002); OCGA § 9–5–8. Among the factors it considers are whether:

]" (Emphasis in original.) Byelick v. Michel Herbelin USA, 275 Ga. 505, 506-507 (2) ( 570 SE2d 307) (2002). Accordingly, the erroneous grant of an interlocutory injunction is reversed, and the case is remanded for a determination of the merits of the EMC's declaratory judgment claim regarding the alleged invalidity of the City's ordinance.

OCGA § 9-8-4. See also Byelick v. Michel Herbelin USA, 275 Ga. 505, 507 (3) ( 570 SE2d 307) (2002). "This is so regardless of the apparent equity of the complainant.

As discussed above, the trial court's dissolution of the temporary restraining order effectively denied Morgan's application for further injunctive relief. “The granting and continuing of injunctions shall always rest in the sound discretion of the judge[.]” OCGA § 9–5–8; see Byelick v. Michel Herbelin USA, 275 Ga. 505, 506(1), 570 S.E.2d 307 (2002). Morgan's only enumerations of error are that the trial court failed to consider the allegations of his amended complaint in deciding whether to extend injunctive relief, and that the court required him to pay into the court registry the amount of his past-due mortgage payments as a condition of a continued injunction.

Id. at 872(1)(a), 670 S.E.2d 543. See Byelick v. Michel Herbelin USA, Inc., 275 Ga. 505, 507(3), 570 S.E.2d 307 (2002) (Appellate court presumes that trial court performed its official duties in accordance with the law.). 16. Harper, supra.

1 (f)). See Byelick v. Michel Herbelin USA, 275 Ga. 505, 507 (3) ( 570 SE2d 307) (2002); see generally Youngblood v. State, 253 Ga. App. 327 (1) ( 558 SE2d 854) (2002) (appellate court presumes that the trial court performed its official duties in accordance with the law). Moreover, CSX acknowledges in its brief that the trial court conducted a hearing on its motion to exclude the expert testimony.

In fact, the interlocutory injunction did not preserve the status quo, as it required Hipster to vacate its current space and relocate to a smaller space in the mall. See Hampton Island Founders, LLC v. Liberty Capital, LLC, 283 Ga. 289, 293 (1) (a) ( 658 SE2d 619) (2008); Byelick v. Michel Herbelin USA, 275 Ga. 505, 506 (1) ( 570 SE2d 307) (2002); Meinhardt, supra at 240.Green v. Waddleton, 288 Ga. App. 369, 370-371 (1) ( 654 SE2d 204) (2007).