Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV00816, Date: 2023-04-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV00816    Hearing Date: April 19, 2023    Dept: C

HUBATCH v. FCA US LLC, et al.

CASE NO.:  22NWCV00816

HEARING:  4/19/23 @ 10:30 AM

#3

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Hubatch’s application for a contempt order is DENIED.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

Plaintiff Hubatch moves for an order of contempt against Defendant FCA US LLC.

A contempt proceeding is commenced by the filing of an affidavit (i.e. the charging allegations).  (CCP § 1211.)  The affidavit frames the issues to be tried. (Reliable Enterprises, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 604, 616.)  Parties requesting an OSC re Contempt must notify opposing counsel before presenting the application. If the court is satisfied that the affidavit alleges sufficient grounds for contempt, it signs an OSC re contempt, setting the date and the time for a hearing. (CCP § 1212.)

On March 2, 2023, this court granted Plaintiff’s ex parte application requesting an OSC re Contempt against Defendant for violation of the court’s January 10, 2023 discovery order, and set the OSC re Contempt for April 19, 2023. 

The citee-respondent must be formally notified of the contempt charge and of the time and place of the hearing; otherwise, the court lacks jurisdiction to proceed. For this purpose, both the OSC and affidavit ordinarily must be served on respondent in a manner authorized for service of summons.  (Cedars-Sinai Imaging Med. Group v. Sup.Ct. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1281, 1286.)

In view of the potential for imprisonment, civil contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature.  (People v. Gonzalez (1996) 12 C4th 804, 816.)  Because the proceedings are quasi-criminal, the procedural requirements must be strictly adhered to.

The minute order of March 2, 2023 indicates that the parties waived notice.

Defendant has submitted evidence that on February 15, 2023, FCA’s counsel discovered that the court’s Order was inadvertently not processed.  FCA’s
counsel promptly, within two hours, responded and informed Plaintiff’s that documents would be sent, on February 24, 2023.  (Hanson Decl. ¶4, Ex. A.)   FCA’s counsel, inadvertently provided this deadline without knowledge that FCA needed additional time to comply with the CMO.  (Id.)  As a result, the production was not sent to Plaintiff until March 22, 2023.  (Hanson Decl. ¶6, Ex. C.)

The court will grant relief pursuant to CCP § 473(b) based on mistake of counsel.  The oversight and untimely production was due to FCA US counsel’s mistake, inadvertence, and excusable neglect.

The court critically notes that Plaintiff failed to utilize alternative means to obtain the discovery, such as a motion to compel initial or further responses.  This action was filed in September 2022, and discovery is still in its infant stages. Contempt proceedings to obtain discovery are unnecessary and a waste of judicial resources when the Discovery Act prescribes alternative means to obtain the information. 

Motion is DENIED.