Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: PC058560, Date: 2023-01-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: PC058560    Hearing Date: January 30, 2023    Dept: F47

Dept. F-47

Date: 1/30/23

Case #PC058560

MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE CONTEMPT

Motion filed on 11/21/22.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor Irene Morcos

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant/Judgment Debtor Mary Morcos

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: The setting of an order to show cause why Defendant/Judgment Debtor Mary Marcos should not be held in contempt for failing and/or refusing to follow the Court’s orders contained in the Third Amended Judgment entered on 12/21/21.  Additionally, Plaintiff requests that the Court award Plaintiff the reasonable attorney’s fees and costs that Plaintiff has incurred, and will incur, to bring and have this motion for contempt heard.   

RULING: The unopposed motion is granted as set forth below. 

On 12/21/21, this Court entered the Third Amended Judgment in this action (the Judgment) in favor of Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor Irene Morcos (Plaintiff) and against Defendant/Judgment Debtor Mary Morcos (Defendant).  Defendant has not filed a Notice of Appeal with regard to the Judgment.

Despite requests from Plaintiff’s counsel, Defendant has failed and refused to comply with the orders of the Court contained in the Judgment.  (See Holmes Decl.; Irene Morcos Decl.).  Therefore, on 11/21/22, Plaintiff filed and served the instant motion seeking the setting of an order to show cause why Defendant/Judgment Debtor Mary Marcos should not be held in contempt for failing and/or refusing to follow the Court’s orders contained in the Third Amended Judgment entered on 12/21/21.  Additionally, Plaintiff requests that the Court award Plaintiff the reasonable attorney’s fees and costs that Plaintiff has incurred, and will incur, to bring and have this motion for contempt heard.  Defendant has not opposed or otherwise responded to the motion. 

Disobedience of a lawful judgment, order, or process of court is punishable as civil contempt.  See CCP 1209(a)(5) and City of Palo Alto (1999) 77 CA4th 327, 338-339.

Based on the declarations of Mark D. Holmes and Irene Morcos, the Court finds a sufficient basis to set an Order to Show Cause as to why Defendant/Judgment Debtor Mary Marcos should not be held in contempt for failing and/or refusing to follow the Court’s orders contained in the Third Amended Judgment entered on 12/21/21.  See CCP 1211(a).  Therefore, the Court will set an Order to Show Cause Re Contempt in approximately 30 days.  See CCP 1212.  Plaintiff is ordered to submit a proposed Order to Show Cause in accordance with this ruling by 1/31/23 at 4:00 p.m.   

Plaintiff’s request for an award of attorney’s fees and costs will be determined in relation to the Order to Show Cause hearing as Defendant must be adjudged guilty of contempt before she is ordered to pay such fees and costs.  See CCP 1218(a). 

Despite being reminded of the bookmarking requirement in this Court’s 12/6/21 ruling on Plaintiff’s Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award and warned of the possible consequences of the failure to comply, Plaintiff has, again, failed to comply with these requirements.  (See 12/6/21 Minute Order, p.1; 5/3/19 First Amended General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil, “TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS,” p.4:4-p.5:12); CRC 31110(f)(4).   

Therefore, Plaintiff is ordered to re-submit its motion with the Order to Show Cause hearing date (rather than the 1/30/23 motion date), with properly bookmarked table of contents, declarations, exhibits and proof of service at least 10 court days before the Order to Show Cause hearing.