Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 21STCV20276, Date: 2025-05-13 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 40 - MICHAEL J. SHULTZ  - 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: 21STCV20276    Hearing Date: May 13, 2025    Dept: 40

21STCV20276 Marisela Vazquez, et al. v. Haven Warner Center, et al.

Related to: 24VECV06430 Marisela Vasquez v. Haven Warner

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION BY DEFENDANT, FPI MANAGEMENT, INC. FOR CONTEMPT AND REQUEST FOR FURTHER MONETARY SANCTIONS

      The first amended complaint in the lead matter alleges that residential premises leased by Plaintiffs from Defendants were uninhabitable because of conditions that Defendants allegedly failed to remedy. Plaintiffs allege nine causes of action for breach of warranty of habitability and related claims.

      Defendant, FPI Management, Inc. (Defendant), argues that Plaintiffs failed to comply with the court’s August 2024 orders awarding Defendant $5,900 in sanctions. Defendant requests that additional monetary sanctions be imposed against Plaintiffs and their counsel and that the court hold Plaintiffs in contempt.

      Plaintiffs did not file an opposition.

      Defendant concedes that Plaintiffs complied with the order to serve further amended responses. (Mot. 4:7-8.) Only the issue of sanctions payable to Defendant remains which Defendant attempts to enforce through the contempt procedure.

      Monetary sanction orders have the force and effect of a money judgment and are "immediately enforceable through execution, except to the extent the trial court may order a stay of the sanction." (Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615; Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2025) ¶ 8:2031. [“Thus, the remedy to enforce payment of monetary sanctions is to obtain and levy a writ of execution on assets of the debtor.”].)

      Accordingly, Defendant’s motion is DENIED.