Judge: John C. Gastelum, Case: 21-01225035, Date: 2022-11-30 Tentative Ruling

Motion for Sanctions

Tentative Ruling:  Defendant Kamryn Whitney Court Reporting (“Defendant” or “KWCR”) moves for an order: (1) holding Plaintiff Griffin Burke (“Plaintiff”) in contempt for failing to comply with this Court’s April 7, 2022 order; (2) imposing further monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,815.00; and (3) imposing contempt sanctions in the amount of $1,500.00. Defendant makes its Motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 1218(a) and 177.5 on the grounds that Plaintiff is in violation of the Court’s April 7, 2022 order.  Pursuant to that order, Plaintiff was ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,000.00 within 10 days of the notice of ruling.  (ROA 131.)

The Court has the power to compel obedience to its judgments, orders, and process.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 128(a)(4), 177.)  The Court may impose reasonable monetary sanctions, not to exceed $1,500, for any violation of a lawful court order by a person without good cause or substantial justification.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 177.5.)  Under section 1218(a), any person who is subject to a court order as a party to an action and adjudged guilty of contempt for violating that order may be ordered to pay the reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred by a party initiating a contempt proceeding.  (Id., § 1218(a).) 

Defendant contends Plaintiff has willfully violated the Court’s order to pay Defendant sanctions and instead has filed a frivolous motion for reconsideration and numerous discovery motions.  Defendant further contends Plaintiff has demonstrated that his filings are intended to harass and needlessly increase the costs of litigation and, if Plaintiff is not appropriately sanctioned, he will continue to file frivolous motions to harass Defendant and waste Court resources.

Plaintiff argues the order imposing monetary sanctions was in favor of KWCR as a cross-complainant, not as Defendant.  Because the cross-complaint was recently dismissed, Plaintiff argues KWCR has no standing to file the instant Motion.  Plaintiff further contends that he has not intentionally violated the Court’s order given his motion for reconsideration, which was filed three days after on the ground that the order was based on the deception and dishonesty of KWCR’s attorneys in representing that Plaintiff failed to comply with the 21-day safe harbor provision.

“‘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.]’”  (Van v. LanguageLine Solutions (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 73, 81.) 

Here, the Court finds the facts essential for a finding of contempt did not exist at the time Defendant’s Motion was filed.  Because Plaintiff had a pending motion for reconsideration of the Court’s April 7, 2022 order, which, if granted, would have relieved Plaintiff of the requirement to pay the ordered sanctions, the Court finds Plaintiff’s failure to pay the sanctions was not willful disobedience of that order. 

For the same reasons, the Court finds monetary sanctions under section 177.5 to be inappropriate.  Plaintiff’s unwillingness to pay the sanctions while his motion for reconsideration was pending was substantially justified.

Thus, the Motion is DENIED without prejudice to Defendant bringing a new motion for sanctions should Plaintiff continue to fail to pay the ordered monetary sanctions now that his motion for reconsideration has been ruled upon.     Defendant to give notice.