Judge: Walter P. Schwarm, Case: 30-2020-01155643, Date: 2022-08-09 Tentative Ruling

Defendant’s (Jonathan Shapiro, D.M.D.) Motion to Compel Plaintiff Lilyanna Coffin’s Compliance with Prior Orders of the Court (Motion), filed on 4-1-22 under ROA No. 187, is DENIED.

The Motion seeks to enforce the court’s 4-27-21 and 5-11-21 order that imposed a total of $1,450.00 as monetary sanctions against Plaintiff. (See, 4-27-21 and 5-11-21 Minute Orders.) 

Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615 (Newland), states, “Nor is a terminating sanction necessary in order to enforce a monetary order. Weil and Brown observe that many attorneys seem to be unaware that monetary sanction orders are enforceable through the execution of judgment laws. (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial 3 (The Rutter Group 1994) ¶¶ 9:344.21, 9:344.22, p. 9(1)-92.) These orders have the force and effect of a money judgment, and are immediately enforceable through execution, except to the extent the trial court may order a stay of the sanction. (See §§ 680.230, 680.270, 699.510, subd. (a); Jones v. Otero, supra, 156 Cal.App.3d at p. 759.) Unawareness of this remedy may explain why terminating sanctions are often sought when monetary sanctions are unpaid.” 

On 4-27-11 and 5-11-21, the court issued two orders requiring Plaintiff to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,450.00. (Aloia Decl., ¶ 3 and Exhibit A.) Defendants served notice of the orders and requested that Plaintiff pay the sanctions. (Aloia Decl., ¶¶ 4 and 5.)  Plaintiff has not paid these monetary sanctions. (Aloia Decl., ¶ 7.)

Since the orders awarding monetary sanctions have the force and effect of a money judgment, the court DENIES the Motion because Defendant has a remedy to enforce the award of sanctions.

Based on the above, the court DENIES Defendant’s (Jonathan Shapiro, D.M.D.) Motion to Compel Plaintiff Lilyanna Coffin’s Compliance with Prior Orders of the Court filed on 4-1-22 under ROA No. 187.

Plaintiff is to give notice.