Judge: James A. Mangione, Case: 37-2022-00001202-CU-OR-CTL, Date: 2023-11-22 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - November 21, 2023

11/22/2023  09:00:00 AM  C-75 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:James A Mangione

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Other Real Property OSC - Non-Sanction 37-2022-00001202-CU-OR-CTL SAUNG VS RIMANIC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Plaintiffs William H.G. Saung and Julie H.P. Chao Saung's Application for Order to Show Cause Re: Defendants' Civil Contempt is denied.

'As a general rule, the elements of contempt include (1) a valid order, (2) knowledge of the order, (3) ability to comply with the order, and (4) willful failure to comply with the order.' (Wanke, Industrial, Commercial, Residential, Inc. v. Keck (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1151, 1168 (quotation marks and alterations omitted).) Plaintiffs seek to hold Defendants in contempt based on this Court's May 13, 2022 minute order granting Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction. Defendants argue that the minute order is ambiguous and cannot form the basis of a contempt ruling. 'To hold a person guilty of contempt for violating an injunction, the acts constituting the contempt must be clearly and specifically prohibited by the terms of the injunction. The party bound by an injunction must be able to determine from its terms what he may and may not do; he cannot be held guilty of contempt for violating an injunction that is uncertain or ambiguous, just as he may not be held guilty of violating a criminal statute that fails to give him adequate notice of the prohibited acts.' (Sorensen v. Superior Court of Santa Barbara County (1969) 269 Cal.App.2d 73, 78 (quotation marks, alterations and citations omitted).) The Court agrees the minute order does not provide unambiguous notice of the acts required or prohibited by the Court's injunction.

To prevent any future confusion, the Court finds it necessary and appropriate to issue a separate, written order reflecting the terms of the injunction. Furthermore, based on Plaintiffs' representations that Defendants have altered the condition of the Disputed Alleyway, the Court's order will require Defendants to remove or remediate any alterations made to the Disputed Alleyway since May 13, 2022 and prevent any further alterations pending adjudication of this case. Finally, the order shall substitute Craig Collins for Martha Gomez.

Plaintiffs are directed to submit a proposed order on the preliminary injunction reflecting the Court's above ruling within five (5) court days.

Defendants' request for permission to present oral evidence pursuant to California Rules of Court 3.1306(b) is denied.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3043838  4