Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 22STCV21340, Date: 2023-08-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV21340    Hearing Date: August 31, 2023    Dept: 48

 

 

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

 

OLIVIA JIMENEZ,

                        Plaintiff,

            vs.

 

SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC.,

 

                        Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

      CASE NO.: 22STCV21340

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT

 

Dept. 48

8:30 a.m.

August 31, 2023

 

On November 3, 2022, the Court granted Defendant Subaru of America, Inc.’s motion to compel Plaintiff Olivia Jimenez’s deposition.  The Court also ordered Plaintiff to pay sanctions of $1,260.00 within ten days.  Plaintiff did not timely pay the sanctions, despite Defendant’s further reminders.  (See Rynerson Decl. ¶¶ 3-5.)

On July 28, 2023, Defendant filed a motion for contempt and sanctions due to Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the November 3, 2022.

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 (Koshak).)  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.)

Plaintiff’s counsel explains that he did not appear at the November 3, 2022 hearing, was unaware of the sanctions order, and was not copied on Defendant’s email reminders.  (Matera Decl. ¶¶ 3-5.)  Due to his mistake, inadvertence, and/or excusable neglect, counsel did not learn about the unpaid sanctions until Defendant filed this motion.  (Matera Decl. ¶¶ 6, 8.)  Plaintiff then paid the sanctions.  (Matera Decl. ¶¶ 9-10 & Ex. 1.)  This was not willful noncompliance with the Court’s order.  Furthermore, this Court has never found a party or attorney in contempt as a result of a discovery dispute.

The motion for contempt is DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.

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.

 

         Dated this 31st day of August 2023

 

 

 

 

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court