Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 18STCV00251, Date: 2023-08-11 Tentative Ruling
All parties are
urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to
see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter. If
you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in
advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather
than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SSCDEPT28@lacourt.org. Include
the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject
line. In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the
hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and
whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant,
cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.
Please be
advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the
hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the
matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the
argument. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in
the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.
If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT
WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line. If you elect to
argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect.
Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent
authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative
ruling as the order of the court.
If you submitted a courtesy copy of
your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request
the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the
hearing of your matter.
Case Number: 18STCV00251 Hearing Date: August 11, 2023 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On October 9, 2018, Plaintiff Lorena Del Carmen Polio (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Marina Rebecca Johnson-Rhoades (“Johnson-Rhoades”), Jason Rhoades (“Rhoades”), Hugo Bernardo Salazar Castillo (“Castillo”) Jorge Luis Salazar (“Salazar”), Maria Natividad Oscalalvarado (“Oscalalvarado”) and Pamela Marie Holftreter (“Holfreter”) for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence.
On July 2, 2020, Castillo and Salazar filed an answer. On July 10, 2020, Castillo and Salazar filed an amended answer and a Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendants Plaintiff, Rhoades, Johnson-Rhoades and Holfreter for indemnity, comparative contribution and declaratory relief. On September 2, 2021, Johnson-Rhoades filed an answer. On October 15, 2021, Plaintiff filed an answer. On November 10, 2021, the Court dismissed Rhoades without prejudice at the request of Castillo and Salazar. On January 26, 2022, the Court dismissed Plaintiff without prejudice at the request of Castillo and Salazar. On March 2, 2022, the Court dismissed Holftreter with prejudice at the request of Castillo and Salazar.
On September 2, 2021, Johnson-Rhoades filed a Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendant Plaintiff and Castillo for indemnity, apportionment of fault, comparative fault and declaratory relief. On September 21, 2021, Castillo filed an answer. On October 15, 2021, Plaintiff filed an answer.
On October 25, 2021, the Court dismissed Rhoades and Holftreter without prejudice. On November 29, 2021, the Court dismissed Oscalalvarado without prejudice. On February 2, 2022, Johnson-Rhoades filed an answer.
On January 24, 2023, the Court denied Johnson-Rhoades's motion for terminating sanctions but granted Johnson-Rhoades’s request for monetary sanctions and ordered Plaintiff to pay Johnson-Rhoades $760.00 by February 24, 2023.
On June 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed a notice of settlement.
On June 23, 2023, Johnson-Rhoades filed a motion for contempt sanctions and monetary sanctions to be heard on August 11, 2023.
No trial date is currently scheduled.
PARTY’S REQUEST
Johnson-Rhoades requests that the Court impose sanctions of $1,285.00 on Plaintiff's counsel based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court's previous order to pay sanctions.
LEGAL STANDARD
“The following acts or omissions in respect to a court of justice, or proceedings therein, are contempts of the authority of the court:
* * *
“(5) Disobedience of any lawful judgment, order, or process of the court.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1209, subd. (a)(5).)
“The willful refusal to obey a valid court order is an act of contempt.” (In re Marcus (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1009, 1014 (Marcus).) “The contempt may take one of two forms. Direct contempt is that committed in the immediate view and presence of the court or of the judge in chambers. Contempt that occurs outside the presence of the court is indirect contempt, which is also known as constructive contempt.” (Ibid.)
A trial court may take action to punish contempt under section 1218 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (Marcus, supra, 138 Cal.App.4th at p. 1014, fn. omitted.) The elements of proof necessary to support punishment for contempt are: (1) a valid court order, (2) the alleged contemnor's knowledge of the order, and (3) noncompliance. (Ibid.)
“A judicial officer shall have the power to impose reasonable money sanctions, not to exceed fifteen hundred dollars ($1,500), notwithstanding any other provision of law, payable to the court, for any violation of a lawful court order by a person, done without good cause or substantial justification. This power shall not apply to advocacy of counsel before the court. For the purposes of this section, the term ‘person’ includes a witness, a party, a party’s attorney, or both. Sanctions pursuant to this section shall not be imposed except on notice contained in a party’s moving or responding papers; or on the court’s own motion, after notice and opportunity to be heard. An order imposing sanctions shall be in writing and shall recite in detail the conduct or circumstances justifying the order.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 177.5.)
DISCUSSION
Although Johnson-Rhoades’s motion is titled “Motion for Contempt Sanctions,” Johnson-Rhodes provides no legal argument supporting a finding of contempt. The Court finds that Johnson-Rhoades has waived any request for a contempt order.
Johnson-Rhoades requests that the Court order Plaintiff’s counsel to pay monetary sanctions of $1,285 under Code of Civil Procedure section 177.5 based on Plaintiff’s failure to pay the January 24, 2023 sanctions award of $760. Plaintiff was required to pay the sanctions award by February 24, 2023.
An award under Code of Civil Procedure section 177.5 is "payable to the court." The statute does not authorize payment to a party.
The Court finds no good cause or substantial justification for Plaintiff’s violation of the Court’s January 24, 2023 order requiring payment of $760 in sanctions by February 24, 2023. Therefore, the Court grants the request for sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure in the amount of $250 to be paid to the Court.
CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES Defendant Marina Rebecca Johnson-Rhoades's motion for contempt sanctions.
The Court GRANTS Defendant’s Marina Rebecca Johnson-Rhoades's motion for sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 177.5 and orders Plaintiff Lorena Del Carmen Polio and her counsel to pay $250 in sanctions to the Clerk of the Los Angeles Superior Court by September 11, 2023.
The Court ORDERS Plaintiff Lorena Del Carmen Polio and her counsel to pay Defendant Marina Rebecca Johnson-Rhoades the original $760 sanctions amount no later than August 18, 2023.
Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.