Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 21STCV07836, Date: 2024-12-05 Tentative Ruling
DEPARTMENT 40 - JUDGE ANNE RICHARDSON - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
The Court issues tentative rulings on certain motions.The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) email Dept 40 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (smcdept40@lacourt.org) with a copy to the other party(ies) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no email is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call.
Case Number: 21STCV07836 Hearing Date: December 5, 2024 Dept: 40
21STCV07836 Sabrina
Peterson v. Clifford Harris, et al.
[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
FOR ISSUANCE OF AN ORDER TO SHOW CONTEMPT AGAINST PLAINTIFF
I.
BACKGROUND
This action arises from alleged defamatory statements
made by Defendants against Plaintiff. On October 17, 2023, the court granted attorney’s
fees to the Harris defendants of $96,702.70 after Defendants prevailed on their
anti-SLAPP motion to strike pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16. Plaintiff
was ordered to remit payment within 90 days of the court’s ruling.
On October 21, 2024, the Hon. Anne Richardson denied
Defendants’ motion to enforce the court order awarding attorney’s fees. The
court denied Defendants’ alternative motion for terminating sanctions as
Plaintiff recently retained new counsel. (M.O.
10/21/24.)
II.
ARGUMENTS
Defendants move for issuance of an order to show cause re
contempt for Plaintiff’s failure to remit payment for attorney’s fees awarded
in connection with Defendants’ successful pursuit of their anti-SLAPP motion.
Defendants request further monetary sanctions of $1,000 per day that Plaintiff
remains in contempt of the court’s order.
In opposition, Plaintiff argues that the court lacks
jurisdiction to hear the motion because Defendants failed to allege a required
element for contempt. The court’s October fee order is void, and a statutory
award is not immediately enforceable in the interim. There is no evidence of
Plaintiff’s ability to comply with the fee order, which is a required element
for contempt. Imposition of additional sanctions of $1,000 per day is not
permitted for an ongoing failure to perform a single obligation.
In reply, Defendants contend that they made this motion
at the urging and invitation of Judge Richardson. Plaintiff’s willful disregard
of the court’s order warrant the requested relief.
III.
DISCUSSION
“Disobedience
of any lawful judgment, order, or process of the court” is punishable by
contempt. The Court determines four issues in a contempt proceeding: "(1)
the rendition of a valid order, (2) actual knowledge of the order, (3) ability
to comply, and (4) willful disobedience." (Van
v. LanguageLine Solutions (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 73, 81.) As the proceeding is criminal in nature, guilt
must be established beyond a reasonable doubt. (Conn
v. Superior Court (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 774, 784; Code
Civ. Proc., § 1209(a)(5).)
Moving
party must prove the existence of a “valid court order, the alleged contemner's
knowledge of the order, and noncompliance. If the petitioner proves those
elements beyond a reasonable doubt the violation is established. He or she need
go no farther.” (Moss
v. Superior Court (Ortiz) (1998) 17 Cal.4th 396, 428.)
Plaintiff
cites In
re Cassil (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1081
wherein the court annulled a judgment of contempt for a contemnor’s failure to
comply with a turnover order of security deposits and rents totaling
$59,939.65. (Id. at
1084.)
The Cassil court held that "[a]n element of an indirect contempt is
that the person subject to the order has the ability to comply with the order.”
(Id. at 1087.)
As Defendants
observe in reply, at this point they seek only an order to show cause, not a judgment
of contempt. An order to show cause does not require a finding of Plaintiff’s
ability to comply with the order requiring Plaintiff’s payment of fees. Plaintiff’s
disobedience is established as Judge Richardson previously granted Plaintiff 90
days to remit payment, over a year has passed, and Plaintiff has willfully and
repeatedly disobeyed the court’s order. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s argument
regarding the court’s lack of jurisdiction argument lacks merit.
Plaintiff
has not established that the fee award is “void” based on the court’s lack of
jurisdiction to rule on fee motion, which was prematurely filed before final
judgment, and because statutory attorney fees are not immediately enforceable.
Plaintiff does not cite any applicable or persuasive authority for these
contentions.
Plaintiff’s
reliance on Moore
v. Kaufman (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 604, 614 is
misplaced. There the judgment for attorney’s fees was void because the
anti-SLAPP statute did not allow for an award of attorney’s fees against a
party’s attorney who was not a party to the litigation. Plaintiff’s reliance on
Ochoa
v. Dorado (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 120 is
equally misplaced as it concerned a trial court’s premature consideration of motions
for new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict as no judgment had yet
been entered. (Id. at 133.)
While
Defendants have shown all elements necessary to issue an order to show cause, Defendants
have not demonstrated that additional sanctions of $1,000 per day for each separate
act of contempt is warranted. Defendants rely on Code Civ. Proc., § 1218, which
permits a fine of $1,000 per day after the answer and evidence are taken and
the court determines whether the contemnor is guilty. (Code
Civ. Proc., § 1218.)
IV.
CONCLUSION
Based
on the foregoing, Defendants’ motion for an order to show cause re: contempt
for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s order to remit payment for attorney’s
fees to Defendants is GRANTED. The court sets an OSC: re Contempt for