Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 20STCV12007, Date: 2023-02-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV12007    Hearing Date: February 28, 2023    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

On March 25, 2020, Plaintiffs in Interpleader Kottler & Kottler, a Professional Law Corporation; International Practice Group, Professional Corporation; and Bryan M. Garrie, a Professional Law Corporation (collectively, “Plaintiffs in Interpleader”) filed this action against a number of defendants.  

On February 18, 2021, Judgments by Default were entered against, inter alia, defendants Advanced Health Center of Inglewood; Beverly Hills Pain Institute & Neurology; Infoneuro Group, A Medical Corporation; Playa Advance Urgent Care, Inc.; Playa Medical Plaza Group; Playa Vista Advanced Surgery Institute; Silicon Beach Surgery Center Inc.; and Silicone Beach Medical Center. On March 11, 2021, Judgment by Default was entered against defendant Playa Advance Surgical Institute, LLC.  

Also on March 11, 2021, the Court entered an Order for Entry of Judgment of Interpleader and Judgment Thereon. The Court’s March 11, 2021 minute order provides, inter alia, that “[t]he Court retains jurisdiction to make orders to enforce any and all terms of settlement, including judgment, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 664.6.”

As set forth in this Court’s May 26, 2022 Order in this matter, on January 25, 2022, Plaintiffs in Interpleader served Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Requests for Production of Documents and Tangible Things (Set One) on defaulted defendants (1) Advanced Health Center of Inglewood; (2) Playa Advance Surgical Institute, LLC.; (3) Playa Advance Urgent Care, Inc.; (4) Playa Medical Plaza Group; (5) Playa Vista Advanced Surgery Institute; (6) Silicon Beach Surgery Center Inc.; and (7) Silicone Beach Medical Center. (Marrero Decl., ¶ 7.) In addition, on February 23, 2022, Plaintiffs in Interpleader served Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Requests for Production of Documents and Tangible Things (Set One) on defaulted defendants (8) Beverly Hills Pain Institute & Neurology and (9) Infoneuro Group, A Medical Corporation. (Ibid.) The foregoing nine defendants are referred to collectively herein as the “Defendants.”

Plaintiffs in Interpleader moved for an order compelling Defendants to respond to Plaintiffs in Interpleader’s Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Requests for Production of Documents and Tangible Things (Set One) served on January 25, 2022 and February 23, 2022. Plaintiffs in Interpleader also requested monetary sanctions. On May 26, 2022, the Court issued an Order granting the motion.

The Court’s May 26, 2022 Order provides, inter alia, that “[t]he Court orders Defendants to serve complete verified responses, without objections, to Plaintiffs in Interpleader’s Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Requests for Production of Documents and Tangible Things (Set One), and to produce responsive documents to the Requests for Production of Documents and Tangible Things (Set One), within 30 days of notice of this order. The Court further orders Defendants to pay $4,972.50 to Plaintiffs in Interpleader within 30 days of notice of this order, with this amount to be allocated equally among the Defendants.”

On May 26, 2022, Plaintiffs in Interpleader served notice of the Court’s Order to Defendants. (Marrero Decl., ¶ 11.) In addition, On October 14, 2022, Plaintiffs in Interpleader, via Nationwide Legal, LLC copy service, personally served the Court’s May 26, 2022 Order on Defendants at their places of business. (Marrero Decl., ¶ 12, Ex. B.) At the time of service, Nationwide requested authorization to copy the documents identified in the order, but Defendants refused to provide access and ignored the May 26, 2022 Order. (Marrero Decl.,         ¶ 12.)

Plaintiffs in Interpleader indicate that to date, none of the Defendants have responded to Plaintiffs in Interpleader’s Special Interrogatories (Set One) or Requests for Production of Documents and Tangible Things (Set One), nor paid the sanctions ordered. (Marrero Decl.,         ¶ 13.)

            Plaintiffs in Interpleader now move for an Order to inspect documents in the possession, custody and control of Defendants. Plaintiffs in Interpleader also move for an award of sanctions and attorney’s fees in the amount of $2,975.00 and reasonable costs related to the inspection of documents to be allocated equally to each of the nine Defendants. Plaintiffs in Interpleader further move for an order to schedule an Order to Show Cause re Contempt. No opposition to the motion was filed.

Discussion

In the motion, Plaintiffs in Interpleader first assert that due to Defendants’ “failure to respond to discovery, this Court’s previous order to respond, and failure to pay sanctions ordered, Plaintiffs in Interpleader need and hereby request a Court order that allows Plaintiffs in Interpleader, via a copy service, to enter the Non- Responding Defendants’ businesses during normal business hours within thirty (30) days of the Court’s order to serve a copy of this Court’s order and demand production, copying and inspection of any and all business records requested in Plaintiffs in Interpleader’s Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Requests for Production of Documents and Tangible Things (Set One) and to remain thereon from day to day until all responsive documents have been made available for inspection and copying.” (Mot. at p. 4:9-16.)

In support of this request, Plaintiffs in Interpleader cite to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.010, subdivision (b), which provides that “[a] party may demand that any other party produce and permit the party making the demand, or someone acting on the demanding party’s behalf, to inspect and to copy a document that is in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made.” 
            As set forth above, the Court’s May 26, 2022 Order already provides that “[t]he Court orders Defendants to serve complete verified responses, without objections, to Plaintiffs in Interpleader’s Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Requests for Production of Documents and Tangible Things (Set One), and to produce responsive documents to the Requests for Production of Documents and Tangible Things (Set One), within 30 days of notice of this order.” (Emphasis added.) The Court thus finds that Plaintiffs in Interpleaders’ request for an order to inspect and copy documents is moot. The Court does not issue orders to comply with its orders. 

 Plaintiffs in Interpleader also assert that the Court should set an OSC Re Contempt. They note that “[t]he following acts or omissions in respect to a court of justice, or proceedings therein, are contempts of the authority of the court…Disobedience of any lawful judgment, order, or process of the court.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1209, subd. (a)(5).)

The Court notes that “[a] contempt proceeding is commenced by the filing of an affidavit and a request for an order to show cause. After notice to the opposing party’s lawyer, the court (if satisfied with the sufficiency of the affidavit) must sign an order to show cause re contempt in which the date and time for a hearing are set forth. The order to show cause acts as a summons to appear in court on a certain day and, as its name suggests, to show cause why a certain thing should not be done. Unless the citee has concealed himself from the court, he must be personally served with the affidavit and the order to show cause; otherwise, the court lacks jurisdiction to proceed.” (Cedars-Sinai Imaging Medical Group v. Superior Court (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1281, 1286-1287 [internal citations and emphasis omitted].)

“As a general rule, the elements of contempt include (1) a valid order, (2) knowledge of the order, (3) ability to comply with the order, and (4) willful failure to comply with the order.” (In re Ivey (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 793, 798.) 

Here, Plaintiffs in Interpleader submit the declaration of their counsel, who states that “[o]n May 26, 2022, Plaintiffs in Interpleader served notice of the Court’s Order to the Non-Responding Defendants.” (Marrero Decl., ¶ 11.) Plaintiffs in Interpleader’s counsel also states that “[o]n October 14, 2022, Plaintiffs in Interpleader, via Nationwide Legal, LLC copy service, personally served the Court’s May 26th order on the Non-Responding Defendants at their places of business. At the time of service, Nationwide requested authorization to copy the documents identified in the order. The Non-Responding Defendants refused to provide access and again ignored the May 26th order.” (Marrero Decl., ¶ 12.) Plaintiffs in Interpleader’s counsel states that “[t]o date, none of the Non-Responding Defendants have responded to Plaintiffs in Interpleader’s Special Interrogatories (Set One) or Requests for Production of Documents and Tangible Things (Set One), nor paid sanctions ordered.” (Marrero Decl., ¶ 13.)

Although Plaintiffs in Interpleader may have the evidence to support the issuance of an order to show cause why Defendants should not be held in contempt for disobedience of the May 26, 2022 Order, the burden on the Court in conducting six contempt proceedings regarding the judgments against the Defendants in amounts less than $3,000 is extreme. Instead, the Court  exercises its discretion under CCP section 386.6 to award Plaintiff its costs and reasonable attorney fees from the amount in dispute which has been deposited with the Court.

            Lastly, Plaintiffs in Interpleader assert that additional monetary sanctions should be issued. They cite to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, subdivision (c), which provides that “[e]xcept as provided in subdivision (d), the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. If a party then fails to obey the order compelling a response, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). In lieu of or in addition to this sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).”

            Plaintiffs in Interpleader seek monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,975.00. (Marrero Decl., ¶¶ 14-15.) However, none of the Defendants opposed the motion; consequently, sanctions under section 2031.300 subdivision (c) are not available to Plaintiffs.  

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs in Interpleader’s motion is denied, but pursuant to CCP section 386.6, the Court orders that Plaintiffs in Interpleader may recover their costs and reasonable attorney fees with regard to the judgments obtained from the Defendants from the amount in dispute which has been deposited with the Court.

Plaintiffs in Interpleader are ordered to give notice of this Order.

DATED:  February 28, 2023                          ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court