What is a Motion for Contempt (CCP 1209)?

Useful Rulings on Motion for an OSC Re: Contempt (CCP 1209)

Recent Rulings on Motion for an OSC Re: Contempt (CCP 1209)

MELODY CHACKER VS SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, AN ARIZONA CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

‘On motion of any party or on the court’s own motion, the court may enter a prefiling order prohibiting the “vexatious litigant” from filing any further pro per petitions, applications or motions (other than discovery motions) in Family Code proceeding without first obtaining leave of the presiding justice/justice/judge (or his or her designee) Disobedience is punishable by contempt.’ (CCP, § 391.7(a), Shalant v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

MUCINO VS. KIM

(Emphasis added). facts supporting indirect contempt arise outside the judge's presence, requiring a more elaborate procedure to notify the person charged and to afford an opportunity to be heard.” In re M.R. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 49, 57. This scenario involves potential direct contempt. Therefore, Judge Horn must be the judge to impose sanctions for contempt. Judge Horn is retired and unavailable. Defendant has not followed the procedures for indirect contempt.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

MUCINO VS. KIM

(Emphasis added). facts supporting indirect contempt arise outside the judge's presence, requiring a more elaborate procedure to notify the person charged and to afford an opportunity to be heard.” In re M.R. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 49, 57. This scenario involves potential direct contempt. Therefore, Judge Horn must be the judge to impose sanctions for contempt. Judge Horn is retired and unavailable. Defendant has not followed the procedures for indirect contempt.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

ANDREW M. EGBE VS SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., ET AL.

Disobedience of the order is punishable as a contempt. (Ibid.) In this case, Defendants claim that Plaintiff is a vexatious litigant pursuant to CCP section 391(b)(2) because, by this action, he is seeking to relitigate an attack on Defendants’ ability to enforce the Deed of Trust. Defendants point to two proceedings to show prior litigation of this issue: (1) a civil action filed in Los Angeles Superior Court (Case. No.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

KENNETH MOORE VS LA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

(1) Motion for Contempt A deponent who disobeys a deposition subpoena may be punished for contempt. (CCP §§ 2025.440(b), 2020.240, 1209(a)(10).) Contempt requires that the subpoena recipient has been “‘duly served’ with the subpoena, [and] . . . had the ability to comply with the order and willfully failed, neglected and refused to do so.” (See Chapman v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County (1968) 261 Cal.App.2d 194, 200.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

BALDOMERO ENRIQUEZ VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

App. 3d 601, the court addressed an adjudication of indirect (styled as “constructive”) contempt for disobeying an oral order of the superior court. Id. at 602. The court noted that disobedience of a lawful order is required for contempt. Id. at 604. A court order is defined as “[e]very direction of a court or judge, made or entered in writing, and not included in a judgment….” CCP §1003.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

SUPER NATURAL, INC. VS PENROSE, LLC

On June 4, 2020, the court granted in part Plaintiff’s ex parte application for an order enforcing the court’s May 22, 2020, TRO and to hold Defendant in contempt of court. The court set an OSC re: contempt against Defendant for July 9, 2020. The court instructed counsel for Plaintiff to personally serve the court’s June 4 order on Defendant.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

FOXENWOODS ESTATES HOA V. SALADO

Nature of Proceedings: Order to Show Cause: Contempt, Motion: Enforce Judgment The stipulated judgment filed June 5, 2019 provides: “Any violation of (the injunction) may be brought to the Court’s attention by the Plaintiff (Foxenwoods Estates HOA) through a Motion.” (Stipulated Judgment, Paragraph 3).

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

T&S VS MANCHENO

Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the stayed sentence and the fine are hereby DISMISSED and the Contempt is DISCHARGED for all purposes.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

OSHEEN HAGHNAZARIAN ET AL VS ALAN ROMERO ET AL

Disobedience of the order by a vexatious litigant may be punished as a contempt of court. (Code Civ. Proc. § 391.7, subd. (a).) Romero argues that Plaintiffs’ practice of filing multiple motions to contest long-resolved dispositions warrants their designation as vexatious litigants. Some explanation of the cases’ procedural history is in order. Default was entered against Plaintiffs in LASC Case No.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

JEREMIAH CASAS VS THE HOPS LLC, ET AL.

(e) [t]he court may impose a contempt sanction by an order treating the misuse of the discovery process as a contempt of court.” (CCP § 2023.030.) “Misuses of the discovery process include… (g) disobeying a court order to provide discovery.” (CCP § 2023.010(g).) Like the arguments made in the Motion to Dismiss above, Plaintiff claims that he was not given written notice of the court’s order.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CHARLES WILLIAMS VS HAO YU

On January 24, 2020 this Court granted plaintiff’s Motion for the Issuance of an Order to Show Cause re Contempt to Robin based upon Robin’s persistent refusal to comply with the Court’s orders. That order to show cause had to be denied on February 13, 2020, however, because a contempt order requires personal service on the person committing contempt and plaintiffs still had no information regarding Robin’s identity or location.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

CLEAN UP AMERICA INC VS ARROW SERVICES INC ET AL

In contempt proceedings, “[a]n intent to commit the forbidden act is as essential to guilt as in the case of a criminal offense.” (Application of Burns (1958) 161 Cal.App.2d 137, 142.) Without providing the specific legal basis to show contempt, Cross-Complainant fails to show that the instant circumstances suffice to show either sufficient intentional conduct for contempt or the legal sufficiency of the allegedly inadvertent conduct for contempt.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

WESTRIDGE VALENCIA MASTER VS. RON ROSS

F-47 Date: 7/2/20 Case #PC057318 APPLICATION/MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: CONTEMPT Application filed on 6/10/20.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

CESAR ROMERO ET AL VS FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY ET AL

A deponent who disobeys a deposition subpoena may be punished for contempt without the necessity of a prior order of the court directing compliance by the witness. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.240.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

ROGER BLISS, AN INDIVIDUAL VS JONATHAN RIVAS, AN INDIVIDUAL

A deponent who disobeys a deposition subpoena may be punished for contempt without the necessity of a prior order of the court directing compliance by the witness. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.240.) However, Kaiser stated it was unable to comply with this Subpoena because its records system is not set up to sort records by body parts. Defendant now moves to compel Kaiser’s compliance with this Subpoena. Plaintiff also submits a brief and the Declaration of Benjamin G.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

VALENCIA GATEWAY RETAIL IV, LLC. VS. AMA CORP., ET AL.

F-47 Date: 7/1/20 Case #PC05653 MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE CONTEMPT Motion filed on 1/9/20.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

DIANA SANDERS VS DALE LEAKE, ET AL.

Plaintiff seeks orders striking out the entirety of Defendant Dale LeAke aka Dale Khan Nabaie’s and Elliott Straite’s Answers to the Complaint, for a contempt sanction to be determined by the Court against Defendants for misuse of the discovery process, and for an additional monetary sanction against Defendants and in favor of Plaintiff, to include Plaintiff’s attorney’s fees in the amount of $2,860.00 on each motion. On April 8, 2020, the Court continued the trial date from May 13, 2020 to July 8, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

LIZ REUBEN VS MERCEDES BENZ USA LLC

The court denies plaintiff’s request that the court issue an Order to Show Cause why defendant should not be held in contempt because the declaration submitted in support of the Ex Parte Application does not state a cause of action for contempt. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1211, subd. (a) [“When the contempt is not committed in the immediate view and presence of the court, or of the judge at chambers, an affidavit shall be presented to the court or judge of the facts constituting the contempt.”].)

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

PALOS VERDES HOMES ASSOC. VS. DAVID GOLDHAMMER, ET AL

“[A]s in the case of contempt, the term ‘willful’ should not be construed as meaning only a deliberate intention to disregard a court order, but rather as encompassing an indifferent disregard of the duty to obey the order promptly.” King v. Woods (1983) 144 Cal. App. 3d 571, 578-79 (citation omitted). “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.

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MM DEVELOPMENT VS. LINX CARD

As against this, the Pelican defendants argue (belatedly, only in their reply) that they have to proceed in the New York case or risk being held in contempt of the New York court’s preliminary injunction. But they offer no coherent argument as to how the Pelican defendants defending themselves in this case could possibly implicate an injunction against them pursuing claims against the funds held in the New York case – funds as to which Pelican has actually disclaimed any interest.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

OZRA YAZDANPANAH VS. SHAHNAZ MOKHTARI

Relief is sought under CCP § 1008 (d), which provides: “(d) A violation of this section may be punished as a contempt and with sanctions as allowed by Section 128.7. In addition, an order made contrary to this section may be revoked by the judge or commissioner who made it, or vacated by a judge of the court in which the action or proceeding is pending.”

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

DAVID BERNSTEIN VS SHIA LABEOUF

Thus, rhetorical hyperbole, vigorous epithets, lusty and imaginative expressions of contempt and language used in a loose, figurative sense will not support a defamation action.”].) The demurrer to the second cause of action is SUSTAINED. III. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS With respect to the Third Cause of Action for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, the Court recognizes that “mere insulting language,” without more, does not amount to outrageous conduct. (Agarwal v.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

IN RE MARQUEZ FAMILY GRANTOR TRUST

OSC re Contempt re Failure to File Accounting by 12/6/19 ******************* On 11/13/19, the Court ordered the trustee Roger Williams to serve and file a statutorily compliant trust account from the date of death of Linda Marquez through 10/31/19. The account was due by 12/6/19. No account was filed. On 12/18/19, the Court set an OSC re Contempt due to the trustee's failure to file the account. As of 6/17/20, the account still has not been filed. On 2/5/20, the Court suspended the trustee's powers.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Type

    Probate

  • Sub Type

    Trust

AMERICAN GROUND TRANSPORT, INC. V. CITY OF ANAHEIM

Counsel should also be prepared to advise the court of what steps have been taken by the City to comply with the direct order of the Court of Appeal, and whether any proven failure to comply with the order of the Court of Appeal may be addressed by the imposition of monetary and evidentiary sanctions and/or an Order to Show Cause re contempt by this court. The court sets a status review hearing for September 24, 2020, at 8:30 am. The plaintiff shall give notice.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 145     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.