Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 20CHCV00239, Date: 2024-04-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20CHCV00239    Hearing Date: April 23, 2024    Dept: F43

Dept. F43

Date: 4-23-24

Case #20CHCV00239, Christopher Mack, et al. vs. Julio Torres, et al.

Trial Date: N/A

MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: CONTEMPT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Christopher Mack, et al.

RESPONDING PARTY: No response has been filed.

RELIEF REQUESTED

Plaintiffs have requested that the Court find Defendant/Citee Julio Torres in contempt of court for his failure to return a vehicle.

RULING: Denied without prejudice

SUMMARY OF ACTION AND ANALYSIS

It is unclear if Plaintiff Christopher Mack (Mack), trustee for the Lamb Mooie Trust, or Wayne R. Tanaka (Tanaka), also listed as trustee and the one who signed the affidavits, filed the motion. Whatever the case, the moving party, in pro per, has requested that the Court issue an order to show cause re: contempt against Defendant Julio Torres (Torres). It appears that the moving party has moved for this order pursuant to CCP § 1209(a)(5). That section categorizes “disobedience of any lawful judgment, order, or process of the court” as a contempt of the authority of the court. (CCP § 1209(a)(5).)

Tanaka’s affidavit that was filed with the motion indicates that Plaintiffs obtained a judgment against Torres, and in August 2023 Torres was served with the judgment. (Tanaka Affidavit, ¶ 1.) This judgment allegedly required that Torres release the 1973 Dodge Challenger to Plaintiffs, but Defendant has refused to do so and claims that he demands storage fees for the release. (Tanaka Affidavit, ¶¶ 3-4.)

There are a few issues with Plaintiffs’ motion. First, the motion purports to have a Declaration from a Gannon McPhillips, but no such declaration is attached. The motion also claims to have a proof of service of the judgment attached to it (Tanaka Affidavit, ¶ 2), but the indicated proof of service is not attached to the motion. There is a proof of service document attached to the motion, but it is unsigned and is for a “proposed judgment” document allegedly served on March 1, 2024. Next, Tanaka claims that he was required to obtain attorney services to file the motion (Tanaka Affidavit, ¶ 10), but the motion appears to have been filed in pro per. Finally, there was no points and authorities with the motion.

Based on the issues with the motion, the motion for an order to show cause re: contempt is denied without prejudice.