Judge: Craig Griffin, Case: Williams v. Skaggs-Tatum, Date: 2022-09-12 Tentative Ruling

Defendants Corrine Skaggs-Tatum (“Tatum”), Camille Williams (“Williams”) and Lyndi Kennedy (“Kennedy”) (together “Defendants”) move for issuance of an Order to Show Cause for Civil Contempt directed to Plaintiff Major Williams (“Plaintiff”) on the grounds that Plaintiff willfully disobeyed the Court’s February 14, 2022 Order to pay Defendants $9,145.25 in attorneys fees and costs.  For the following reasons, Defendants’ motion is GRANTED.

Disobedience of any lawful judgment, order or process of the court constitutes contempt of the authority of the court.  (Code of Civil Procedure §1209(a)(5).)

The substantive issues involved in a contempt proceeding are: (1) rendition of a valid order, (2) knowledge of the order, (3) ability to comply with the order, and (4) willful disobedience.  (Wanke, Industrial, Commercial, Residential, Inc. v. Keck (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1151, 1168.)

Here, Defendants have presented sufficient evidence of the foregoing factors to commence contempt proceedings against Plaintiff.  (See Mauriello Decl. ¶ 4-8, ROA 86, 88.)

Accordingly, an Order to Show Cause Re: Contempt shall be set for October 17, 2022, at 2:00 p.m. in Department N17.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1212.)  

Plaintiff’s request that the Court set an Order to Show Cause re: why the dismissal entered on September 21, 2021 should not be vacated and the Anti-SLAPP motion should not be denied outright or an OSC re: why the Anti-SLAPP motion should not be decided on the merits, after an opportunity for briefing and the proffering of admissible evidence by Plaintiff showing why he will prevail on the merits of his claims is DENIED.

The Court finds there is nothing presented in the Opposition that would compel a reconsideration of this Court’s February 14, 2022 ruling.  As the Court recognized in that ruling, a public figure, like Plaintiff, cannot recover damages for statements about unfitness for office unless he proves by clear and convincing evidence that the statements were made with actual malice, meaning knowledge that they were false or with reckless disregard of whether they were false or not.  (Conroy v. Spitzer (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1446,1451.)  The Court previously considered the pleadings and evidence in the record and concluded that Plaintiff had not shown that there is admissible evidence which, if credited, would be sufficient to sustain a judgment in his favor.  (ROA 86.)

Further, Plaintiff’s contention that this case was improvidently dismissed based on incorrect advice from his former counsel has no bearing on the instant motion.  Moreover, Plaintiff could have obtained new counsel after his former counsel withdrew and prior to the February 14, 2022 hearing, but he failed to do so.  The Court also provided Plaintiff with an opportunity to submit supplemental briefing in connection with Defendant’s motion for attorney fees (see ROA 79), but again Plaintiff failed to do so.

Thus, Plaintiff’s request that the Court issue an OSC is denied.

Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice included in his Opposition (see Opp., pg. 3, fn 2.) is DENIED for failure to comply with CRC Rules 3.1113(l) and Rule 3.1306(c).

Defendants’ request for attorneys’ fees and costs of $810 is premature as Plaintiff has not yet been adjudged guilty of contempt.  (CCP § 1218(a).)  Accordingly, the request is DENIED without prejudice to renewal should the Court ultimately determine that Plaintiff is in contempt after the OSC proceedings.   

Moving Party to give notice.