Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case Number: 23STUD11101, Date: 2024-01-23 Tentative Ruling

All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter. If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SMCDept71@LACourt.org. Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject line. In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.

Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the argument. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

THE WOMAN’S CLUB OF HOLLYWOOD, CALIFORNIA,

vs.

SARA VAN HORN, et al.

Case No.: 23STUD11101

Hearing Date: April 16, 2024

Defendants Sara Van Horn’s and Patrick Van Horn’s motion for an order to show cause why Attorney Karen Rooney should not be held in contempt of this Court’s March 4, 2024, Order is denied.

Defendants’ request for monetary sanctions against Attorney Karen Rooney is denied.

Defendants Sara Van Horn (“Sara”) and Patrick Van Horn (“Patrick”) (collectively, “Defendants”) move for an order for an order to show cause why Plaintiff The Woman’s Club of Hollywood, California’s (“Woman’s Club”) (“Plaintiff”) former counsel, Karen Rooney (“Rooney”) should not be held in contempt of this Court’s March 4, 2024, Order. (Notice of Motion, pgs. 1-2.) Defendants request the Court impose monetary sanctions against Rooney in the amount of at least $10,000.00. (Notice of Motion, pg. 2.)

Defendants filed the instant motion on March 19, 2024, with the accompanying declaration of Attorney Jennifer Holliday (“Holliday”) in support of the motion. Rooney filed her opposition on April 4, 2024. As of the date of this hearing no reply has been filed.

Rooney’s argument the instant motion is defective because she was not personally served with the affidavit and the OSC is misplaced. (Opposition, pg. 4; Cedars-Sinai Imaging Medical Group v. Superior Court (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1281, 1286-1287.) Rooney misreads the jurisdictional requirement articulated in Cedars-Sinai Imaging Medical Group, which states that after a motion, like the instant motion, is filed with the support of an affidavit, and the Court in fact grants the motion and sets the OSC re contempt, then the affidavit and the signed order to show cause must be personally served on the party subject to the OSC. (Cedars-Sinai Imaging Medical Group, 83 Cal.App.4th at pgs. 1286-1287 [“[T]he court (if satisfied with the sufficiency of the affidavit) must sign an order to show cause re contempt in which the date and time for a hearing are set forth. (§ 1212; Arthur v. Superior Court (1965) 62 Cal.2d 404, 408, 42 Cal.Rptr. 441, 398 P.2d 777 [“an order to show cause must be issued”]; Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 1999) § 9:715, p. 9(II)–47.) The order to show cause acts as a summons to appear in court on a certain day and, as its name suggests, to show cause why a certain thing should not be done. (Morelli v. Superior Court (1968) 262 Cal.App.2d 262, 269, 68 Cal.Rptr. 572.) Unless the citee has concealed himself from the court, he must be personally served with the affidavit and the order to show cause; otherwise, the court lacks jurisdiction to proceed. (§ 1015 [in civil actions in which a party is represented by an attorney, “the service of papers, when required, must be upon the attorney instead of the party, except service of subpoenas, of writs, and other process issued in the suit, and of papers to bring him into contempt”].”].) Here, no such OSC has been set that would necessitate personal service. Accordingly, the Court will consider Defendants’ motion.

C.C.P. §1211(a) provides when 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. (C.C.P. §1211(a).) In addition, C.C.P. §1209(a)(5) provides that disobedience of any order is a contempt of the authority of the court.

“It is axiomatic that a court may not punish a contempt committed out of its presence without a full hearing . . . at which [the alleged contemner] has the opportunity to appear by reason of personal service of an order to show cause [C.C.P. §§1211, 1212]. Neither warrant nor order to show cause may issue except on proper affidavit setting forth the full facts of the alleged contempt.” (Lund v. Superior Court of Orange County (1964) 61 Cal.2d 698, 713.)

“‘[A] valid order and judgment of indirect contempt must cover the following elements: the issuance of an order, the contemner’s knowledge of the order, the contemner’s ability to obey it, and the contemner’s willful disobedience. [Citation.] The order and judgment must state evidentiary facts supporting a finding of each of these elements, except that it need not state such facts in support of the finding of willfulness, which may be inferred from the circumstances.’ [Citation.]” (Koehler v. Superior Court (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1153, 1169.)

Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden to demonstrate Rooney willfully disobeyed this Court’s March 4, 2024, Ruling. First, the Court recognizes the March 4, 2024, Minute Order omits the Court’s revision that directed Rooney to pay the sanctions specified. Regardless, Rooney submitted a counter-affidavit stating despite her disagreement with the interpretation of the order (presumably the requirement that sanctions are directed at her and not her former clients), Rooney personally mailed Defendants’ counsel a check on her firm account. (Decl. of Rooney ¶2.) The Court therefore has not determined that Rooney willfully violated any order of this Court.