Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: SC129646, Date: 2023-09-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: SC129646    Hearing Date: September 18, 2023    Dept: 207

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

Plaintiff Mela Ferrer (“Plaintiff”), in pro per, seeks an order of contempt against Defendant Benson Gilliard DBA Better Cardio & Body LLC (“Defendant”) for failing to comply with the Court’s June 27, 2022 judgment against him by sending Plaintiff monthly “Invoices,” which show an accounting of Defendant’s outstanding balance owed to Plaintiff that omit the $18,749.21 in prejudgment interest awarded by the Court and also contain other improper deductions to the outstanding balance owed.  Defendant has not opposed the motion.

BACKGROUND

            This case stems from a loan Plaintiff extended to Defendant to finance Defendant’s new business, which Defendant failed to repay, pursuant to the parties’ loan agreement. 

            On November 14, 2019, the Court entered a default judgment against Defendant.  On October 16, 2020, Defendant filed a motion to vacate the judgment, which the Court granted on September 2, 2021.  Defendant answered the complaint by way of a general denial on September 8, 2021.

            Plaintiff informed the Court she was not properly served notice of Defendant’s motion to vacate, so on January 24, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff the opportunity to file an opposition, and reconsidered Defendant’s motion.  Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to vacate on January 27, 2022.  On March 25, 2022, after reading and considering Plaintiff’s opposition, the Court again granted Defendant’s Motion to Vacate the Default Judgment and ordered Defendant to answer Plaintiff’s complaint by April 14, 2022.  Defendant did so by filing a general denial on April 12, 2022.

            On June 10, 2022, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default against Defendant and the case proceeded to a bench trial on June 27, 2022.  At trial, the Court heard testimony from both parties and admitted documentary evidence from Plaintiff.  Following the trial, the Court entered judgment in Plaintiff’s favor in the amount of $44,208.41 in principal and $18,749.21 in prejudgment interest, for a total award of $62,957.62.  The Court denied Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages.

            On May 25, 2023, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Document Fraud” and on June 7, 2023, Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Amend Motion for Document Fraud,” both of which were unopposed.  In the Court’s June 22, 2023 Minute Order, the Court noted that it was unclear what relief Plaintiff sought, but that she appeared to be again requesting an award of punitive damages, and that Plaintiff appeared to be expressing her dissatisfaction that Defendant had not satisfied the June 27, 2022 judgment entered against him and had not paid Plaintiff’s attorney’s fees and costs.  The Court denied the motion, on the basis that the issue of punitive damages was addressed at trial, and Plaintiff had not timely appealed, and Plaintiff had also not timely submitted a memorandum of costs, and thus had waived the right to recoup attorneys’ fees and costs.  (June 22, 2023 Minute Order.)

ANALYSIS

            Code of Civil Procedure section 1209, subdivision (a) provides, in relevant part, “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.” 

            Penal Code section 166 outlines the specific behaviors that constitute criminal contempt of court, as well as their respective penalties. 

As a threshold matter, it is unclear what specific relief Plaintiff seeks by the motion, other than a declaratory order that Defendant’s invoices constitute civil contempt of the Court’s June 27, 2022 judgment.  Plaintiff already has a judgment entitling her to $62,957.62.  Defendant’s invoices do not warrant additional monetary sanctions, as would defiance of a court order constituting an abuse of the discovery process, for example.  Nor are the invoices encompassed within Penal Code section 166, warranting fines and/or imprisonment. 

In any event, the Court finds Plaintiff’s motion for contempt procedurally and substantively improper.  Contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature and require personal service on the refusing party, regardless of whether they are represented by counsel. (Cedars-Sinai Imaging Medical Group v. Superior Court (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1281, 1286-1287.)  Here, Plaintiff’s proof of service indicates Plaintiff served Defendant by mail only.

Furthermore, Plaintiff has not provided any admissible evidence in support of the motion.  The exhibits attached to the motion are not authenticated by a declaration signed under penalty of perjury, or otherwise, to establish their authenticity.

Moreover, to the extent Plaintiff contends Defendant provided an inaccurate accounting of the debt owed, the judgment did not order Defendant to provide an accounting, and as such, the invoices are not a direct violation of the judgment.  To the extent Plaintiff interprets the invoices as a signal that Defendant does not intend to pay the full judgment, the California Constitution prohibits imprisonment for debt.  (Cal. Const., art. I, § 10.)  As such, the Court cannot hold Defendant in contempt for failure to pay the debt owed.  (Knutte v. Superior Court of City and County of San Francisco (1901) 134 Cal. 660, 661; Crider v. Superior Court (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 227, 232 [“It goes without saying that such money judgments in civil actions for debt cannot be enforced by contempt”].)

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for contempt as procedurally and substantively faulty.   The Clerk of the Court shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling.