Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 20STCP04198, Date: 2023-04-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCP04198    Hearing Date: April 28, 2023    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     April 28, 2023                        TRIAL DATE: June 27, 2023

CASE:                         Long Z. Liu v. City of Baldwin Park, et al.

CASE NO.:                 20STCP04198                       

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SANCTIONS ONLY)

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff Long Z. Liu

RESPONDING PARTY(S): City of Baldwin Park, erroneously sued as Baldwin Park Police Department and Baldwin Park City Hall

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This was a petition for writ of mandamus filed on December 20, 2020. Plaintiff now alleges through his First Amended Complaint, filed on December 6, 2022, that Defendants engaged in a criminal conspiracy to illegally tow vehicles and force their owners to pay extortionate fees to retrieve the vehicles from impoundment. Plaintiff alleges that he was personally injured and his civil rights violated when his vehicle was allegedly unlawfully towed.

Plaintiff moves for an order to show cause re: contempt for failure to pay sanctions ordered by the Court in connection with discovery motions.

TENTATIVE RULING:

            Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order to Show Cause Re: Contempt is DENIED.

DISCUSSION:

Legal Standard

            Contempt is any act, in or out of court, “which tends to impede, embarrass or obstruct the court in the discharge of its duties.”  (In re Shortridge (1893) 99 Cal. 526, 532.)  Particular acts constituting contempt are enumerated by statute, including:¿ “(d)isobedience of any lawful ... order, or process of the court”;¿ “(d)isobedience of a subpoena duly served”; “refusing to ... answer as a witness”;¿ “(d)isorderly, contemptuous, or insolent behavior toward the judge while holding the court, tending to interrupt the due course of ... trial.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1209(a); see also Code Civ. Proc. § 1991 [disobedience of subpoena]; and Pen.C. § 166 [misdemeanor].)  In addition, courts have inherent power to punish acts that interfere with the orderly conduct of proceedings.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 128(a)(3); In re Buckley (1973) 10 Cal.3d 237, 247.)  Any person who commits a contemptuous act may be punished for contempt, which includes attorneys (Hallinan v. Superior Court (1925) 74 Cal.App. 420, 426 [persisting in arguing objections after repeated warnings by judge]; Hanson v. Superior Court (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 75, 84-85 [attorney misconduct during closing argument]) and parties (In re Coleman (1974) 12 Cal.3d 568, 573 [labor union violated temporary restraining order]). 

The contempt at issue is “indirect,” which requires a more elaborate procedure to notify the person(s) sought to be charged and to allow him or her an opportunity to be heard.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1211–1218; see also Hanson v. Superior Court, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 81.)  “An affidavit must be presented to the court stating the facts constituting the contempt, an order to show cause must be issued, and hearing on the facts must be held by the judge.”  (Arthur v. Superior Court (1965) 62 Cal.2d 404, 407-408.)  Since the acts involved did not occur in the court’s presence, the affidavit (declaration) must cover each element of the commission of the contempt.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1211.5.)  This affidavit serves as the “complaint” in indirect contempt proceeding (Lyon v. Superior Court (1968) 68 Cal.2d 446, 452) and must contain factual allegations based on firsthand knowledge. 

In indirect contempt proceedings based on disobedience of a prior court order, a valid judgment must meet “strict requirements.”¿ Each of the following must be established: (1) the rendition of a valid court order; (2) actual knowledge of the order; (3) ability to comply; and (4) willful disobedience of the order.  (Conn v. Superior Court (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 774, 784 [repeated failures to turn over documents as ordered].) Upon receipt of the affidavit, the court usually issues an order to show cause (OSC) why the person should not be held in contempt.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1212.)  Although not required, the alleged contemnor may respond to the affidavit and OSC by counter-affidavits or declarations.  These affidavits serve as the “answer” to the charging allegations in the original affidavit. (Lyon v. Superior Court, supra, 68 Cal.2d at p. 452.)  Such affidavits are not mandatory, however. The alleged contemnor may assert his or her defenses entirely at the hearing.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1217.) 

Analysis

            On January 6, 2023, the Court entered an order on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories granting the motion and ordering sanctions against Defendant’s Counsel Robert Tafoya only in the amount of $2,025. (January 6, 2023 Minute Order.) The Court ordered that payment was to be made within 30 days of that order. (Id.) Accordingly, payment was due on February 5, 2023. As reflected in the Court’s Minute Order, Mr. Tafoya was present at the hearing, and the award of sanctions against him alone and not his client was based on his own averments before the Court in that hearing. (Id. p. 7.) There is thus no question that Mr. Tafoya was aware of the Court’s order.

            Plaintiff offers no evidence, however, that Mr. Tafoya was capable of obeying the Court’s order, or, more importantly, that his purported disobedience of the Court’s order was willful. Plaintiff’s affidavit states that payment of the sanctions has not been made but offers only conclusory assertions that Mr. Tafoya was capable of making the payment and willfully refused to do so. (Affidavit of David Lopez ISO Mot. ¶¶ 3, 5.) Indeed, Mr. Tafoya states in opposition that he did, in fact, make the payment, although he does not specify the date or manner of payment in his declaration. (Declaration of Robert Tafoya ISO Opp. ¶ 2.) This showing is not sufficient to justify an order to show cause re: contempt.

Defendant’s Request for Sanctions

            Defendant and Mr. Tafoya request sanctions against Plaintiff.  Defendant cites no authority authorizing sanctions against a party who unsuccessfully makes a motion for an OSC re: contempt. The Court therefore rejects Defendant’s request for sanctions.

CONCLUSION:

            Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order to Show Cause Re: Contempt is DENIED.

            Moving party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  April 28, 2023                                    ___________________________________

                                                                                    Theresa M. Traber

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

            Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.