Case Number: 21STCV38690    Hearing Date: July 11, 2023    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff Timothy Bruce.

OPPOSITION:                     [Unopposed]

Background

Plaintiff Timothy Bruce—now deceased, by and through his Successor in Interest, Kynan Bruce—sues Defendants California Care, Inc. and Edward Melkumyan pursuant to a May 26, 2022 First Amended Complaint (FAC) alleging claims of (1) Elder Abuse and (2) Negligent Retention and Hiring. The claims arise from allegations that, during a five-week stay with Defendants California Care, Inc. and Edward Melkumyan—who owned, operated, managed and/or controlled a residential care facility for the elderly located at 18975 Collins Street, Tarzana, California 91356 at all relevant times—Timothy Bruce suffered from neglect of care, leading Bruce to “develop[] pressure sores on his back, hip and coccyx area that continued to worsen until they were Stage IV exposing muscle and bone.”

On April 14, 2022, Plaintiff served on nonparty Silver Years Healthcare, Inc. a deposition subpoena for the personal appearance and production of documents and things from Silver Years’ custodian of records.

The deposition was noticed for May 11, 2022, which Silver Years failed to attend.

Thus, on May 11, 2022, Plaintiff made an ultimately unopposed motion to compel compliance with its deposition subpoena, seeking to compel Silver Years’ production of records related to its care of Plaintiff Bruce in 2021, i.e., the same year when Plaintiff Bruce sustained his injuries.

The Court granted the motion on June 20, 2022 and imposed monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,000, to be paid in 14 calendar days.

Between June 2022 and April 2023, Plaintiff attempted on numerous occasions to establish communications with Silver Years regarding compliance with this Court’s order, to no avail.

On April 6, 2023, Plaintiff moved for an order to show cause hearing re: contempt proceedings against Silver Years, as well as its registered Officer, Director, and Agent for Service of Process, Diana Hakobyan (alleged by Plaintiff to also be Silver Years’ owner), for failure to comply with this Court’s June 20, 2022 order mandating Silver Years’ deposition attendance, production of documents, and payment of sanctions.

Silver Years has failed to oppose the motion, which is now before the Court.

Motion for OSC re: Contempt

Legal Standard

Contempt of the Court is defined and the procedures for establishing it are laid out in Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1209 et seq. Disobedience of any lawful judgment, order or process of the court constitutes contempt of the authority of the court. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1209, subd. (a)(5); see also In re Young (1995) 9 Cal.4th 1052, 1053 [“Willful failure to comply with an order of the court constitutes contempt”].) Similarly, disobedience of a subpoena duly served, or refusing to be sworn or answer as a witness, is a ground for contempt. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1209, subd. (a)(10).)

To find contempt, each of the following substantive issues must be established: (1) the rendition of a valid court order; (2) actual knowledge of the order; (3) ability to comply; and (4) willful disobedience of the order. (In re Ivey (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 793, 798; see e.g., Conn v. Superior Court (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 774, 784 [repeated failure to surrender documents as ordered as grounds for contempt].)

Code of Civil Procedure Section 1211 requires that “[w]hen the contempt is not committed in the immediate view and presence of the court, or of the judge at chambers, an affidavit shall be presented to the court or judge of the facts constituting the contempt, or a statement of the facts by the referees or arbitrators, or other judicial officers.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1211, subd. (a).) In¿cases of indirect contempt, “a more elaborate procedure must be followed in order to notify the person so charged and to allow him an opportunity to be heard … [where] an affidavit must be presented to the court stating the facts constituting the contempt, an order to show cause must be issued, and hearing on the facts must be held by the judge.” (Arthur v. Superior Court (1965) 62 Cal.2d 404, 407-408.)

Order Calendaring OSC re: Contempt: GRANTED.

Here, sufficient grounds exist to set an OSC re: Contempt.

Plaintiff provides a motion making allegations (an affidavit), which, if taken as true, could result in contempt against Silver Years Healthcare and Diana Hakobyan per the In re Ivey elements: (1) rendition of a June 20, 2022 order by this Court (see 6/20/22 Minutes); (2) alleged actual knowledge thereof through Plaintiff’s service of the notice of ruling on Silver Years, as well as a person presumed to be Diana Hakobyan (see 6/27/23 Notice of Ruling, Proof of Service; see also Mot., Baladejo Decl., ¶ 6); (3) no information explaining Silver Years’ inability to comply with the June 20, 2022 order; and (4) willful disobedience thereof by failing to provide a custodian of records for deposition and production, as well as failure to pay sanctions (see Mot., Baladejo Decl., ¶¶ 11-12). (See Arthur v. Superior Court, supra, 62 Cal.2d at pp. 407-408 [affidavit required to set OSC re: Contempt]; In re Ivey, supra, 85 Cal.App.4th at p. 798 [elements applied above]; see also Super. Ct. L.A. County, Local Rules, rule 3.11, subd. (a) [local rules on OSC re: Contempt].)

Plaintiff’s motion is thus GRANTED. 

Conclusion

 Plaintiff Timothy Bruce’s Motion for an Order to Show Cause re: Contempt Proceedings Against Silver Years Healthcare Inc. and Diana Hakobyan is GRANTED.

The hearing is set for Friday, August 11, 2023 at 9:30 a.m.

The hearing will also serve as an arraignment of Diana Hakobyan re: the criminal sanctions sought by Plaintiff. (See Mot., p. 4 [seeking five days’ imprisonment].)

A determination on sanctions is postponed until the August 11th hearing.

Silver Years Healthcare, Inc. and Diana Hakobyan must be personally served with this order, in addition to the motion.