Judge Teresa A. Beaudet, Case Number: 20STCV47187, Date: 2024-10-28 Tentative Ruling

On December 9, 2020, Plaintiff David Mazor (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action against Defendants William Leys (“Leys”) and Jose Ortiz (jointly, “Defendants”) for stalking.

On August 24, 2021, Judgment was entered in this matter against Defendants, jointly and severally, in the total amount of $1,000,855.00, plus post-judgment interest.[1] The August 24, 2021 Judgment also includes specified injunctive orders.

On February 15, 2024, the Court issued a minute order in this action providing, inter alia, that “[o]n or before 02/26/2024, plaintiff may file and serve a brief of no more than 10 pages in support of plaintiff’s claim that no trial is required based upon, inter alia, the ruling the motion to dismiss [sic] and that sentencing only is required and attorney fees remain as issues in the contempt proceeding. The Public Defender on behalf of Mr. Leys may file a response, thereto of no more than 10 pages on or before 03/11/2024. Any reply of up to 5 pages must be filed and served on or before 03/18/2024.”

On July 19, 2024, the Court issued a minute order providing, inter alia, that “Defendant will serve via email his response to Plaintiff’s brief regarding conclusion of contempt proceedings by August 9, 2024 (10 page limit). Plaintiff will serve via email the reply thereto by August 23, 2024 (10 page Limit) No surreply.” On September 6, 2024, the Court issued another minute order providing, inter alia, that “[t]he Court requests and Defendant agrees to file and serve a response to the Plaintiff’s reply papers filed August 23, 2024 with a courtesy copy delivered to Department 50. Defendant will address, inter alia, Penal Code 1043, The subject of the Court’s order to restart the contempt trial and what is left for the trial. Plaintiff’s [sic] requested and the Court grants their request to respond thereto and that response will be filed and served on or before October 11, 2024 with a courtesy copy delivered to Department 50. The hearing thereon will be as follows: Status Conference is scheduled for 10/28/24...”

On February 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed a “brief re conclusion of contempt proceedings.” On August 9, 2024, Leys filed a “response to Plaintiff’s motion re: conclusion of contempt proceedings.” On August 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed a “reply re conclusion of contempt proceedings.” On September 20, 2024, Leys filed a “sur-reply to Plaintiff’s response re: conclusion of contempt proceedings.” On October 8, 2024, Plaintiff filed a “response to sur-reply re conclusion of contempt proceedings.”

The Court grants Plaintiff’s “request for judicial notice in support of Plaintiff’s brief re conclusion of contempt proceedings” as to the specified exhibits. The Court also grants Plaintiff’s “request for judicial notice in support of Plaintiff’s reply re conclusion of contempt proceedings” as to the specified exhibits.

In his brief filed February 26, 2024, Plaintiff states that he “submits this brief…to show that all elements of contempt have been satisfied and that the pending contempt proceedings…must, therefore, conclude at the next-scheduled trial date with the entry of an order of contempt, the imposition of punishment, and an award of attorneys’ fees and costs against Defendant, William Leys…” (Plaintiff’s Brief at p. 1:19-23.)

Plaintiff notes that on May 16, 2022, the Court issued an Order in this action on Plaintiff’s motion for an order/osc re contempt against Leys. The May 16, 2022 Order noted that “[a]s 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.) The Court’s May 16, 2022 Order further provides as follows:

“The Court’s August 24, 2021 Judgment provides, inter alia, that ‘Defendants are to immediately take down the website, WICRLeaks.com (‘Website’), and are prohibited from hosting, updating, and otherwise permitting the Website to remain up and running, being visible to any member of the public, and continuing to render accessible the Website URL on search engines results by any means at any time…’ The August 24, 2021 Judgment also provides that:

‘Defendants are hereby prohibited from present and future postings of Mazor’s name and likeness, and the names and likenesses of Mazor’s immediate family, as defined in Civil Code § 1708.7(a)(2)(A), WICR Waterproofing and Construction, Inc. (‘WICR’), and the names, logo, and likenesses of Lindborg & Mazor LLP, the name and logo of WICR (collectively, the ‘Protected Persons’ and ‘Protected Material’) on any website, social media platform, or any other method, and otherwise harassing, intimidating, molesting, attacking, striking, stalking, threatening, assaulting, hitting, abusing, directly or indirectly communicating, disturbing the peace of, and destroying, interfering with, or otherwise damaging the personal property of the Protected Persons, including Mazor’s business, by, inter alia, continuing to render accessible any and all prior postings relating to the Protected Persons or the Protected Material on search engines results by any means at any time…’

Plaintiff submits evidence that the subject Website is up and running, openly visible to all members of the public, and that Leys has been updating the Website after the Judgment was entered. (Lindborg Decl., ¶ 3, Exs. 1-2.) Plaintiff provides evidence that shortly after the Court entered its Judgment, Leys posted on the Website that ‘[t]his website will not come down voluntarily on my part.’ (Lindborg Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. 1.) Plaintiff also submits evidence that after the Judgment was entered, Leys posted matter on another website that he owns and/or controls, as well as on Twitter, concerning Plaintiff and his business. (Lindborg Decl., ¶ 3, Exs. 3, 4.)

In his ‘reply/answer’ to the instant motion, Leys does not dispute the foregoing evidence submitted by Plaintiff. Rather, he argues that ‘[t]he Declaration of David Mazor In Support of Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Order To Show Cause Re Preliminary Injunction’ and the ‘Supplemental Declaration of David Mazor In Support of Order To Show Cause Re Preliminary Injunction’ contain false statements. These arguments are not relevant to the instant motion, which concerns whether Leys has failed to comply with the Court’s August 24, 2021 Judgment…Leys also makes a ‘Request and Motion to Declare Judgment Void on Its Face Under CCP 473(D)’ in his reply/answer to the instant motion. The Court notes that Leys’ response to the instant motion is not the appropriate vehicle by which to make such a request.

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff has submitted sufficient evidence to support the issuance of an order to show cause why Defendant should not be held in contempt for his disobedience of the August 24, 2021 Judgment.” (May 16, 2022 Order at pp. 3:1-4:7.)

The Court’s May 16, 2022 Order further provides that “Plaintiff’s motion is granted. The Court orders Defendant William Leys to appear in Department 50 on 6/6/22, at 2 p.m. to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for failing to comply with the Court’s August 24, 2021 Judgment.” (May 16, 2022 Order at p. 4:9-13.)

The Court notes that on June 6, 2022, the Court issued a minute order providing, inter alia, that “[o]n the Court’s own motion, the Order to Show Cause Re: why defendant William Leys should not be held in contempt for failing to comply with the Court’s August 24, 2021 Judgment scheduled for 06/06/2022 is continued to 06/13/22…” The Court’s June 13, 2022 minute order provides that “[p]ursuant to the request of defendant, the Order to Show Cause Re: why defendant William Leys should not be held in contempt for failing to comply with the Court’s August 24, 2021 Judgment scheduled for 06/13/2022 is continued to 07/18/22…”

The Court’s July 18, 2022 minute order provides, inter alia, that “[t]he order to show cause is called for hearing,” and that “[t]he contempt hearing is continued to August 1, 2022.” The Court’s August 1, 2022 minute order provides that “[t]he Court continues the Order to Show Cause (OSC) hearing to the previously reserved date of August 8, 2022 at 3:00 p.m. in Department 50 so the public defender can contact Mr. Leys.”

The Court’s August 8, 2022 minute order provides, inter alia, that “Counsel from the Public Defender’s office appeared on behalf of Defendant Leys. Counsel requested a summary of the proceedings to date which the Court provided to her. Counsel for Plaintiff agreed with the description provided by the Court. Counsel for Defendant requested that the proceedings start anew because she could not adequately represent Defendant since she was not present for the testimony of the first witness.” The August 8, 2022 minute order further provides that “the Court determined that it was best to exercise its discretion and to start the proceedings anew so the public defender could counsel Defendant regarding the issues in the case and defend him in the proceedings from the outset.”

As discussed, in the instant briefing, Plaintiff asserts that “these Contempt Proceedings must be concluded at the next scheduled trial date with the entry of an order of contempt against Leys, the imposition of punishment, and an award of attorneys’ fees and costs against him.” (Plaintiff’s Brief at p. 10:23-25.) In his brief, Plaintiff notes that the Court of Appeal in Crittenden v. Superior Court of San Diego County (1964) 225 Cal.App.2d 101, 106-107 noted that “[i]n a constructive contempt proceeding, the issues of fact are framed by the declarations of the parties. The allegations in the moving party’s declaration are deemed admitted if not denied in the defense declaration. A hearing is required only upon the controverted issues.” (Internal citation omitted.) Plaintiff appears to assert that there are no longer “controverted issues” in the contempt proceedings here such that a hearing is not required.

As set forth above, “[a]s 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, supra, 85 Cal.App.4th at p. 798.) Plaintiff appears to argue that the second, third, and fourth elements of contempt have been satisfied here because Leys did not dispute the evidence submitted by Plaintiff in support of Plaintiff’s motion for an order/osc re contempt against Leys. Plaintiff emphasizes that the Court’s May 16, 2022 Order on Plaintiff’s motion provides, as set forth above, that “[i]n his ‘reply/answer’ to the instant motion, Leys does not dispute the foregoing evidence submitted by Plaintiff.” (May 16, 2022 Order at p. 3:20-22.) However, the Court notes that in Leys’ May 2, 2022 “reply/answer” referenced in the May 16, 2022 Order, Leys states that he “denies that he as violated the Court Order.” Consequently, the “reply/answer” did not constitute an admission that the fourth element of willful failure to comply with the order was admitted by Leys.

Plaintiff also notes that on July 31, 2023, the Court issued an Order in this action denying Leys’s “motion to dismiss contempt based upon invalidity of the underlying order and judgment.” Plaintiff appears to argue that because the Court denied Leys’s motion to dismiss on July 31, 2023, “all elements of contempt have now been established” and a hearing is not required. (Plaintiff’s Brief at p. 5:12-13.) It appears that Plaintiff is arguing that the Court’s July 31, 2023 Order supports the fact that there is a “valid order” in this action, i.e., the first element of contempt. (In re Ivey, supra, 85 Cal.App.4th at p. 798.)

Based on the foregoing, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request to conclude the contempt proceedings “at the next scheduled trial date with the entry of an order of contempt against Leys, the imposition of punishment, and an award of attorneys’ fees and costs against him.” (Plaintiff’s Brief at p. 10:24-25.)

[1]The Judgment was signed on August 23, 2021 and filed on August 24, 2021.

[2]Plaintiff appears to argue that the Cout held a “trial” on July 31, 2023. But the Court’s July 31, 2023 hearing concerned Leys’s “motion to dismiss contempt based upon invalidity of the underlying order and judgment.”

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50