Judge Layne H. Melzer, Case 2014-00745940 2023-08-24 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Layne H. Melzer, Case: 2014-00745940, Date: 2023-08-24 Tentative Ruling

Defendants Beom & Eun Investment, Llc, Eun J Lee, Won B Lee

Motion to Enforce Court Order

Defendants Won Beom Lee, Eun Joo Lee, and Beom & Eun Investment, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”) seek an order requiring plaintiff Linda Hong (“Plaintiff”) to show cause why she should not be held in contempt of this Court’s 4/13/23 Order, directing Plaintiff to produce certain documents. Defendants also seek monetary sanctions in the amount of $5,390 against Plaintiff and her counsel, Daniel Park.

“Disobedience of any lawful judgment, order, or process of the court” is contempt of the authority of the court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1209, subd. (a)(5).)

“The substantive issues involved in a contempt proceeding are (1) the rendition of a valid order, (2) actual knowledge of the order, (3) ability to comply, and (4) willful disobedience.” (Conn v. Superior Court (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 774, 784.) “A contempt proceeding [for indirect contempt] is commenced by the filing of an affidavit and a request for an order to show cause.” (Cedars-Sinai Imaging Medical Group v. Superior Court (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1281, 1286 [citing Code Civ. Proc., § 1211].) “After notice to the opposing party’s lawyer, the 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.” (Id. at 1286.)

“[T]he filing of a sufficient affidavit is a jurisdictional prerequisite to a contempt proceeding.” (In re Koehler (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1153, 1169.) Each allegation (valid order, knowledge, ability to comply and willful disobedience) must be pled by factual statements; however, the affidavit may be amended to correct technical insufficiencies if the respondent would not be prejudiced by such amendment. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1211.5(b).) To establish willful disobedience, the affidavit should show that the alleged contemnor had personal notice of the contents of the order. “The burden of proof is on the moving party to prove the respondent’s ability to comply (rather than on the respondent to prove inability).” (Koehler, supra, 181 Cal. App.4^th at 1160, citing Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2009) ¶ 9:724.1; In re Cassil (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1081, 1088, fn. 1.) “A punitive contempt for due process purposes occurs when a fixed term of incarceration or fine is set by the court.” (Id. at 1087.)

Here, Defendants have shown a valid court order dated 4/13/23. Plaintiff does not dispute this.

Plaintiff has knowledge of the order; she was present when it was issued and was thereafter served notice of it. (Chun Decl., Ex. A.)

Plaintiff already agreed to produce documents in response to each of the requests at issue, which was also ordered by the Court. Plaintiff’s production of only a few documents (at least one of which was already produced) along with her amended responses amounts to a willful violation of the Order.

Specifically, the Order required Plaintiff to produce documents relating to the following: (1) the proceeds from the sale of her property in Las Vegas; (2) the proceeds from the loans secured by her Garden Grove property; and (3) income from her spa business. (Chun Decl., Ex. A.)

In response to the Order, Plaintiff produced (1) a one-page escrow settlement statement from the sale of one Las Vegas property which was previously produced, and (2) a few checks made payable to “Imperial Spa” from various different accounts from 2014 to 2019. (Chun Decl., ¶ 3.) Plaintiff produced no documents showing whether these old checks had anything to do with the deed of trust recorded in 2021 against her Garden Grove property; nor did she provide any documentation as to how she used the loan proceeds. (Chun Decl., ¶ 3.)

Her initial responses (which the Court’s order was based on) stated she would produce all documents in her possession, custody and control, and her amended responses state that she “has provided all responsive documents currently within her possession, custody and control,” or “no such documents exist” in response to the third category. (Chun Decl., Ex. B.) If Plaintiff did not have responsive documents to the requests, why did her initial responses indicate the opposite and why was this not conveyed to the Court at the hearing?

Given the nature of these discovery requests, it appears that Plaintiff is withholding documents and has willfully failed to comply with the Court’s order.

The Court’s 4/13/23 Order additionally stated that if the requested documents do not exist, Plaintiff was to provide a declaration for each document not provided. This was not done.

Accordingly, the Court grants Defendants’ motion. Defendants shall prepare an OSC for the Court’s issuance. Defendants shall properly serve the OSC on Plaintiff. Defendants shall give notice.