Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 19CMCV00177, Date: 2022-08-04 Tentative Ruling

INSTRUCTIONS: If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance on the matter, the moving party must:

1. Contact the opposing party and all other parties who have appeared in the action and confirm that each will submit on the tentative ruling.

2. No later than 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing, call the Courtroom (310-761-4302) advising that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling and waive hearing; and

3. Serve notice of the Court's ruling on all parties entitled to receive service.

If this procedure is followed, when the case is called the Court will enter its ruling on the motion in accordance with its tentative ruling. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary, and all parties should appear at the hearing. If there is neither a telephone call nor an appearance, then the matter may either be taken off calendar or ruled on. 

TENTATIVE RULINGS -- http://www.lacourt.org/tentativeRulingNet/ui/main.aspx?casetype=civil

Case Number: 19CMCV00177    Hearing Date: August 4, 2022    Dept: A

19CMCV00177 Johnny Bailey v. Gary Davis, Eric P. Hall

Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 8:30 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER TAKING OFF CALEND DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: CONTEMPT AGAINST PLAINTIFF, JOHNNY BAILEY

The Complaint alleges that Defendant, Eric P. Hall, is the President of American Executive Private Security, Inc. Hall was a party to an agreement with the Housing Authority for the City of Los Angeles to provide security services. On December 14, 2017, Plaintiff alleges he contracted with Defendants to provide security guard services for a two-year term. Complaint, ¶ 5. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants breached the agreement by refusing to allow Plaintiff to fulfill his two-year obligation or to pay Plaintiff for lost wages of $162,171.00. Complaint, ¶ 7-8.

Defendant Hall’s motion, filed on July 15, 2022, asks for an order for Plaintiff to show cause why a contempt order should not be issued. Defendant argues that on November 16, 2021, the court ordered Plaintiff to provide verified responses without objections to written discovery within 30 days of notice of the court’s order and to pay sanctions in Defendant’s favor. Plaintiff failed to comply with the court’s order.

Defendant untimely served Plaintiff with the motion by mail on July 15, 2022. The motion should have been served by July 8, 2022, to provide 16 court days of notice increased by five calendar days for service by mail. Code Civ. Proc., § 1005(b).

Accordingly, the motion is taken off calendar for defective service.