Judge Thomas D. Long, Case Number: 21STCV33923, Date: 2023-05-16 Tentative Ruling

On January 18, 2024, the Court granted discovery motions filed by Plaintiff Leo Cordova and ordered Defendant Long Spring Freight LLC to produce its PMK for a deposition and pay sanctions within 30 days. On March 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for contempt of this order.

On April 19, 2024, Plaintiff filed a request for entry of default judgment against defaulted Defendants A&D Hauling Services and Vincent Hui.

A court may find a person in contempt for disobedience of a lawful court order. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1209, subd. (a)(6), 1218.) “‘The elements of proof necessary to support punishment for contempt are: (1) a valid court order, (2) the alleged contemnor’s knowledge of the order, and (3) noncompliance. [Citation.] The order must be clear, specific, and unequivocal. [Citation.]’” (Koshak v. Malek (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1540, 1548-1549.) A finding of contempt must be based on a “clear, intentional violation of a specific, narrowly drawn order. Specificity is an essential prerequisite of a contempt citation.” (Van v. Language Line Services, Inc. (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 73, 82.) Contempt “‘is a drastic remedy, to be employed only when necessary to the proper and orderly conduct of judicial proceedings.’” (Chapman v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County (1968) 261 Cal.App.2d 194, 201.)

“Unless the citee has concealed himself from the court, he must be personally served with the affidavit and 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.) Plaintiff did not personally serve Defendant with the contempt papers. Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction.

Plaintiff also requests an order to show cause why Defendant’s counsel should not be held in contempt. Defendant’s counsel’s declaration, filed on April 16, 2024, provides a satisfactory explanation for why he could not comply with the discovery order: Defendant’s representative said he would not authorize any further defense of this action, and counsel cannot take any further steps. Counsel plans to bring a motion to withdraw as Defendant’s counsel.

Plaintiff seeks a judgment of $1,656,748.18, consisting of $609,400.00 in damages, $1,000,000.00 in punitive damages, $28,351.62 in prejudgment interest, $18,274.73 in attorney fees, and $721.83 in costs.

Plaintiff did file Statements of Damages with proofs of service showing service of the Statements before the entries of default. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 425.11, subd. (c), 425.115, subd. (f).) The Statements of Damages state Plaintiff’s intent to seek $5,000,000.00 for emotional distress, $75,000.00 for loss of earnings, and $2,000,000.00 in punitive damages. However, of Plaintiff’s requested damages, $109,400.00 is for loss of earnings. (Cordova Decl. ¶ 15.) The Court cannot award more in a default judgment than the amount demanded in the complaint or statement of damages. (Code Civ. Proc., § 580, subd. (a).) Additionally, some of Plaintiff’s lost earnings are speculative. Plaintiff received an annual bonus in 2019, and he “reasonably believe[s] that, if [he] had still been employed at Defendants at the end of 2020, [he] would have received at least another bonus of $5,000.” (Cordova Decl. ¶ 14.)

Plaintiff’s claims against Long Spring Freight LLC are still pending. Plaintiff has not yet dismissed or substituted a successor-in-interest for Defendant Grace Hsiao Hui, who is now deceased. Accordingly, she too remains named in this action and is not in default. “Where parties are jointly liable on the same obligation, it is improper to enter a default judgment against one while the action remains pending against others.” (6 Witkin, Cal. Proc. (6th ed. March 2023 Update) Judgment by Default, § 171(2)(b).)

For at least these reasons, the request for entry of default judgment is DENIED.

On the Court’s own motion, the Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal for Failure to Enter Default Judgment as to Defendant A&D Hauling Services scheduled for May 3, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. is advanced to this date and vacated.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit. If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court