Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 21STCP00191, Date: 2024-02-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCP00191    Hearing Date: February 1, 2024    Dept: 68

Dept. 68

Date: 2-1-23

Case #21STCV00191

HEARING ON OSC RE: CONTEMPT

MOVING PARTY: Respondents, Pressed Down, LLC, et al.

RESPONDING PARTY: Petitioners, Chul Lim Choe, et al.

RELIEF REQUESTED

Hearing on OSC re: Contempt

SUMMARY OF ACTION:

On January 25, 2021, Chul Lim Choe and Protech Minerals, Inc. filed a Petition to Correct the Arbitration Award and Enter Judgment as to arbitration decision entered as to respondents Pressed Down, LLC, Protech Minerals, LLC, and Protech Minerals RE LLC. On October 17, 2023, the court denied the petition as to petitioners, and granted as to respondents. Petitioners filed a notice of appeal on July 2, 2021. On June 24, 2022, the order on the petition was affirmed on appeal. Remittitur was issued on September 12, 2022.

RULING: Continued.

On June 9, 2023, respondents Pressed Down, LLC, Protech Minerals, LLC, and Protech Minerals RE LLC filed an Application for OSC re: Contempt and Sanctions for Failure to Comply with the Court Order in favor of Respondents. The core of the dispute involves an order for injunctive relief transferring interests in certain mining claims, which includes payment of certain annual claim mining fees to the Bureau of Land Management by Petitioner or persons/entities associated with Petitioner. Petitioner denies any wrongful conduct in violation of the order and appellate opinion. Respondent in reply reiterates the basis of the violation.

Beginning on August 9, 2023, the court continued the hearing multiple times, until August 23, 2023, when the parties announced a stipulation. On August 24, 2023, the court entered the stipulation of the parties, whereby it was agreed that: “Judgment Debtors and their officers:

“1. Shall not renew or cause any other person, including, but not limited to, Jennifer Choe, Anthony Chee a/k/a Choe, Hannah Kang and Patrick Kang, Katherine Choi a/k/a Choe and Andrew Cobb, Peter Han, Grace Han, Abraham Han, Monica Han, Sam Choe, Hah K. Han, Jisoo Han, Joseph S. Han, Katelin Aldridge, Jennifer Logsdon, Janeen Tyler, Jarrod Tyler and Joyce Han, to renew any of the Mining Claims, by any means, including, but not limited to, payment of the annual unpatented mining claim maintenance fee to the BLM, filing of a small-miner’s waiver and/or proof of annual assessment work;

2. Shall not record or cause to be recorded in the Official County Records, any affidavit or notice of intent to hold or notice of intent to locate, related to the Mining Claims;

3. Shall not take any other action or cause any person to take any other action that causes the Mining Claims to be renewed by any person or entity other than Judgment Creditors or persons and/entities associated therewith;

4. Shall not stake or cause any other person to stake new mining claims in a 1-mile radius of any of the Mining Claims identified above; and 5. Shall not communicate the anticipated status of expiration of any of the Mining Claims to any other person or entity.”

In a September 5, 2023, status report, Petitioners challenged certain aspects of the “Plan of Operations,” which subsequently became part of the contempt hearing considerations. Beginning on September 6, 2023, the court again began a series of continuances of the OSC re: Contempt.

On October 9, 2023, Petitioner filed a Notice of Settlement and Request for OSC re: Dismissal. On October 17, 2023, the court again continued the hearing on the OSC re: Contempt and set a hearing for “Plans of Operation Issue.” The parties were ordered to submit a “Joint Report” on any “remaining issues no later than” November 15, 2023. On November 17, 2023, the hearings were again continued to January 16, 2024, and again to February 1, 2023.

To support an order to show cause re an indirect contempt (occurring outside the immediate presence of the court), a declaration must evidence, as jurisdictional requirements “‘(1) the making of the order, (2) knowledge of the order, (3) ability of the accused to render compliance, and (4) willful disobedience of the order [Citations]’.” (Board of Supervisors v. Sup. Ct. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1724, 1736.) The Court may set a contempt hearing based on the willful violation of the temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction. (In re Coleman (1974) 12 Cal.3d 568, 571.)

Given the court only assumed the new assignment approximately two weeks before the instant hearing, the court remains unclear on the current state of the action. The motion for an order to show cause appears to remain as a request for the setting of a contempt hearing, rather than an actual contempt hearing. The court however prefers the parties update the court on the state of the settlement and “Plan of Operation” at the time of the hearing, or subsequently ordered written brief(s). Barring any imminent threat requiring immediate address, such as a threatened claim waiver through non-payment of the renewal fee to BLM or improper efforts to transfer title, the court will continue the hearing for 45 to 60 days and allow the parties to update the court.

Respondents to give notice.