Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 21STCV47105, Date: 2025-05-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV47105    Hearing Date: May 28, 2025    Dept: 76

This is an action to recover rent, late charges and interest pursuant to a commercial lease, as well as reimbursement for fines paid to the city and required repairs.

Default judgment was entered on July 1, 2022.

Judgment Creditor D & D Monroe Properties, LLC moves for an order to show cause why Debtor/Defendant should not be held on contempt for failure to comply with Court’s August 9, 2023 order compelling Judgment Debtor’s responses to post-judgment special interrogatories and post-judgment request for production of documents and for payment of sanctions. 

TENTATIVE RULING

Judgment Creditor D & D Monroe Properties, LLC’s motion to set an order to show cause re: contempt and request for monetary sanctions is DENIED. Judgment creditor may bring a motion which is more appropriately tailored and based upon more apposite authority.

ANALYSIS

Motion For Order To Show Cause re: Contempt

Discussion

Judgment Creditor D & D Monroe Properties, LLC moves for an order to show cause why Debtor/Defendant should not be held on contempt for failure to comply with Court’s August 9, 2023 order compelling Judgment Debtor’s responses to post-judgment special interrogatories and post-judgment request for production of documents and for payment of sanctions.

“The facts essential to jurisdiction for a contempt proceeding are ‘(1) the making of the order; (2) knowledge of the order; (3) ability of the respondent to render compliance, (4) willful disobedience of the order.’ [Citations.]” (In re Liu (1969) 273 Cal.App.2d 135, 140–141 [78 Cal. Rptr. 85], fn. omitted.)  A contempt proceeding is “punitive and separate from the cause out of which it arises [citation], and it is for this reason that every ‘i’ must be dotted and every ‘t’ crossed.” (Cedars-Sinai Imaging Medical Group v. Superior Court (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1281, 1287 [100 Cal. Rptr. 2d 320].) Whether the acts complained of “constituted a contempt is jurisdictional, and in the absence of evidence showing contempt” the order must be annulled. (Arthur v. Superior Court (1965) 62 Cal.2d 404, 409 [42 Cal. Rptr. 441, 398 P.2d 777].)

(Van v. LanguageLine Solutions (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 73, 81.) 

            This motion is brought pursuant to Civ. Proc. Code, §§ 2023.010(d) and § 2023.010 (g), based on the judgment debtor’s failure to comply with the August 9, 2023 order.

Civ. Proc. Code, §§ 2023.010(d) and § 2023.010 (g) provide: 

Misuses of the discovery process include, but are not limited to, the following:

. .

(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery. 

. . . 

(g) Disobeying a court order to provide discovery.

     (Civ. Proc. Code,  § 2023.010(d) & (g).) 

The August 9, 2023 order states as follows:

Judgment Creditor D & D Monroe Properties, LLC’s motion for sanctions against Defendant/Judgment Creditor Gerardo Bernal is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $1,185. Defendant/Judgment Creditor Gerardo Bernal is ordered to pay sanctions to Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor’s counsel within 20 days. 

The August 9, 2023 does not address responses, only sanctions to be paid. Not only does Civ. Proc. Code,  § 2023.010(d) & (g) not address contempt, the failure to pay sanctions is generally enforceable as a judgment.  For purposes of enforcement of judgment: “ ‘Judgment’ means a judgment, order, or decree entered in a court of this state.” (Civ. Proc. Code, § 680.230 [bold emphasis added].)  Enforcement is by way of a writ of execution. (Civ. Proc. Code, § 699.510.)  The Court does not set orders to show cause re: contempt for failure to pay sanctions orders.

As such, this motion is unnecessary. The motion to set an order to show cause re: contempt and request for monetary sanctions is DENIED. Judgment creditor may bring a motion which is more appropriately tailored and based upon more applicable authority.