TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Safe At Home ID 5804’s Motion for Contempt of Court Orders is DENIED.

Clerk to give notice. 

REASONING

Plaintiff Safe At Home ID 5804 (“Plaintiff”) moves the Court for an order finding Defendant The People Concern (“Defendant”) in contempt of a court order dated December 6, 2023, on the ground that Defendant has refused to follow rules of the subject shelter, have harassed Plaintiff because she filed this action, and gave Plaintiff’s name to other individuals. The motion does not include a proof of service upon Defendant, and while Plaintiff filed a proof of service on February 16, 2024, indicating that the motion was served by mail, Defendant states that Plaintiff did not serve the motion. In the interest of judicial efficiency, the Court addresses the merits of the purported motions, given that Defendant has filed a substantive opposition to the motion.

Code of Civil Procedure section 1209, subdivision (a), sets forth twelve grounds upon which the Court may find that conduct constitutes contempt of court, including disobedience of an order of the court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1209, subd. (a)(5).) Code of Civil Procedure section 1211, subdivision (a), provides that “[w]hen the contempt is not committed in the immediate view and presence of the court, or of the judge at chambers, an affidavit shall be presented to the court or judge of the facts constituting the contempt, or a statement of the facts by the referees or arbitrators, or other judicial officers.” The factual predicates to a finding of contempt “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.) If the judicial officer finds that the affidavit provided by the moving party charges facts sufficient to constitute contempt, an order to show cause may be issued. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1212; In re Koehler (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1153, 1169.) The punishment for contempt is up to five days’ imprisonment, a fine of up to $1,000 for each contempt, or both. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1218, subd. (a).) “Civil contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal because of the penalties which may be imposed.” (In re Kreitman (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 750, 754.) Thus, “guilt must be established beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Conn v. Superior Court, supra, 196 Cal.App.3d at p. 784.)

Plaintiff argues that Defendant has failed to comply with the Court’s order dated December 6, 2023. In that order, the Court issued certain limited interim protective orders, including that Defendant and its employees shall protect Plaintiff’s name and identity, refrain from harassing Plaintiff, refrain from preventing Plaintiff from calling the police, allow Plaintiff to leave the shelter to appear at court hearings, and refrain from restricting Plaintiff’s access to the upstairs balcony and cafeteria.

Plaintiff has not set forth a sufficient basis for the Court to issue an order to show cause regarding Defendant’s purported contempt. First, Code of Civil Procedure section 2003 defines an affidavit as “a written declaration under oath.” Plaintiff’s filing document does not appear to constitute a proper affidavit simply because Plaintiff has signed the document, but even if the Court were to conclude that Plaintiff’s motion papers constitute a proper affidavit, Plaintiff has failed to show Defendant’s willful disobedience of a court order. The exhibits attached to Plaintiff’s motion are only communication of Plaintiff’s concerns about purported issues at the shelter and photographs purportedly documenting the same, i.e., Plaintiff asks the Court to find that Defendant is in contempt of a court order based solely on her conclusory statements that Defendant violated the order. While this alone would be sufficient to deny Plaintiff’s motion, Defendant has also provided evidence contradicting Plaintiff’s accounts. (See Opp’n, Loch Decl. ¶¶ 4-8.) Thus, Plaintiff has failed to establish that Defendant violated the Court’s December 6, 2023, order, and Plaintiff Safe At Home ID 5804’s Motion for Contempt of Court Orders is DENIED.