Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 20STCV26365, Date: 2022-09-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV26365    Hearing Date: September 27, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff, Alonso B. Martinez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Lu-Shur Antonio Williams and Transit Systems Unlimited, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident. 

On April 30, 2021, the Court heard and granted Defendants’ motions to compel responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and request for productions of documents (“RPDs”), all set one, against Plaintiff.  The Court ordered Plaintiff to serve verified responses to the subject discovery requests, without objections, within ten days, and imposed sanctions of $980 against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel, jointly and severally. Defendants assert that Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel have failed to comply with the Court’s order and have not served discovery responses or paid the monetary sanctions. 

Defendants now move for an order that the Court enforce the April 21, 2021, impose sanctions of $5,000.00 against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel, and set an Order to Show Cause Re: why Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel should be held in contempt for failing to follow the Court’s order.  The motion is unopposed.

As to Defendants’ request that the Court enforce its April 30, 2021 order, the Order remains as issued.  That is, Plaintiff is still required to served responses as ordered, and Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel are still required to pay the relevant monetary sanctions imposed against them.

            As to the request to set an OSC Re: Contempt and find Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel in contempt for failing to comply with the April 30, 2021 order, it is not clear from their motion that Defendants understand that they are attempting to initiate a contempt trial that they would be committed to prosecute.  The procedures for contempt are quasi-criminal, and the burden of proof on Defendants here is significant.  The contempt proceeding is typically initiated by a charging affidavit, which frames issues that will be tried and seeks an Order to Show Cause re: Contempt from the court.  (CCP § 1211 [“an affidavit shall be presented to the court or judge of the facts constituting the contempt”]; Cedars-Sinai Imaging Medical Group v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, (2000) 83 Cal.App.4^th 1283).  If the OSC re: Contempt is issued, it is normally served as a summons would be, personally, and then the citee is arraigned.  [Cedars-Sinai at 1286.]  In some cases, a public defender must be assigned to represent the citee at the contempt trial.  (County of Santa Clara v. The Superior Court of Santa Clara County (Rodriguez), (1992) 2 Cal.4^th 1686, 1697.]  At the trial, Defendants would need to meet the higher burden of proof to show that contempt was warranted.  “Although a contempt may arise, as here, in the context of a civil action, a contempt proceeding is punitive and separate from the cause out of which it arises (Kroneberger v. Superior Court, supra, "196 Cal.App.2d at p. 210), and it is for this reason that every "i" must be dotted and every "t" crossed.”  (Cedars-Sinai at 1286.)  

Aside from this, Defendants do not establish the failure to comply was willful.  (See Chapman v. Sup.Ct. (1968) 261 Cal.App.2d 194, 200-201 [finding of contempt reversed where no evidence of willful disobedience to subpoena]; Van v. Language Line Services, Inc. (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 73, 82 [“Punishment for contempt ‘can only rest upon [a] clear, intentional violation of a specific, narrowly drawn order. Specificity is an essential prerequisite of a contempt citation.].)  The declaration filed in support of the request states that the order was served electronically, and this is not specific enough to show that the violation was willful.

            As to Defendants’ request the Court sanction Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel in the amount of $5,000.00, because the motion is being denied, the request for monetary sanctions is likewise denied.  Furthermore, Defendants provide no basis as to how this amount was calculated or why it is warranted. 

            Based on the foregoing, the motion is denied.  The denial is without prejudice to Defendants moving for appropriate issue, evidentiary, or terminating sanctions if Plaintiff continues to fail to comply with the court’s April 30, 2021 order.

Defendants are ordered to give notice. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 27^th day of September 2022