What is a Motion for Contempt (CCP 1209)?

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

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

101-125 of 3971 results

LOGAN VS STEADFAST HILLTOP

Absent some allegation that plaintiffs were engaged in a vocation where credit is an important asset and necessary for the proper conduct of their business, the instant communication in a legal sense would not expose plaintiffs to public contempt or ridicule, not tend to degrade them in society.” (Ibid.) Here, as in Gautier, the statement that Plaintiff had an unpaid debt of $144.06 is not libelous per se and Plaintiff is required to show he suffered special damages.

  • Hearing

    Nov 12, 2020

THE MOTIVA GROUP INC VS HOLLERAN

Plaintiff Michael Holleran's Motion for a Stay pending the Contempt Trial in related case is DENIED. Cases are clear that a party does not have a right to a stay of civil proceedings pending resolution of a contempt matter or any criminal matter. Any stay is discretionary with the Court.

  • Hearing

    Nov 12, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

PNC EQUIPMENT FINANCE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, SUCCESSOR BY ASSIGNMENT TO ECN FINANCIAL LLC DBA WABASH NAT VS OT TRUCKLINES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Such order shall contain a notice to the defendant that failure to turn over possession of such property to plaintiff may subject the defendant to being held in contempt of court.” (C.C.P., § 512.070.) Analysis The summons and complaint and the notices of application for writ of possession were served by substituted service and mailed First Class to 2019 Noble View Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 pursuant to C.C.P., § 415.20(b).

  • Hearing

    Nov 12, 2020

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

BMO HARRIS BANK N.A., A NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATION VS NBA AUTOMOTIVE, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

The order must notify the defendant that failure to comply may subject him or her to contempt of court. CCP §512.070. The turnover remedy is not issued in lieu of a writ, but in conjunction with it to provide the plaintiff with a less expensive means of obtaining possession. See Edwards v Superior Court, (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 173, 178. 3.

  • Hearing

    Nov 10, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

KENNETH ADLER, ET AL. VS SHIRLEE LYNN BLISS

Disobedience of the order by a vexatious litigant may be punished as a contempt of court. (b) The presiding justice or presiding judge shall permit the filing of that litigation only if it appears that the litigation has merit and has not been filed for the purposes of harassment or delay. The presiding justice or presiding judge may condition the filing of the litigation upon the furnishing of security for the benefit of the defendants as provided in Section 391.3.

  • Hearing

    Nov 06, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

IN RE THE HERMAN ADLER 2006 TRUST

The an Account and Report has not been filed by 11/5/20, the Court intends to issue an OSC re Contempt for failure to account per order of 8/5/20. Proposed Order to be lodged prior to hearing per Local Rule 10.00.D.1. __________________ The court discourages in-person appearances in Department J6 during the COVID-19 pandemic period. Appearances in Department J6 should be made by CourtCall (audio or video) whenever possible.

  • Hearing

    Nov 05, 2020

  • Type

    Probate

  • Sub Type

    Trust

UBS BANK USA VS MARSHALL

Judgment Creditor UBS Bank's unopposed application for an Order to Show Cause Re: Contempt and Sanctions against Judgment Debtor Steven Marshall is granted as set forth below. UBS Bank has submitted an affidavit regarding Judgment Debtor's alleged failure to comply with the discovery orders issued by the Court on July 21, 2020. See Code Civ. Proc. § 1211. The Court will issue an Order to Show Cause Re Contempt and set the hearing on the OSC for January 4, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 29.

  • Hearing

    Nov 05, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

RODRIGUEZ VS HERNANDEZ

Plaintiff's Order to Show Cause Re Contempt A proceeding for indirect contempt is initiated by the filing of an affidavit and a request for an order to show cause. Code Civ. Proc., § 1211(a); Cedars-Sinai Imaging Medical Group v. Superior Court (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1281, 1286. In its opposition, Productora seems to focus on its view that plaintiff will not be able to prove contempt. That is not the question for this stage of the proceeding.

  • Hearing

    Nov 05, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

ELSA JUAREZ VS SEARS HOLDING CORPORATION

Sears also requests contempt sanctions against Mr. Juarez and monetary sanctions against Plaintiff’s counsel. The court finds that because Mr. Juarez’s failure to appear was due to Plaintiff’s counsel’s advice and given that Sears was notified Mr. Juarez would not appear before the noticed date, Sears did not incur unnecessary costs. The court will not impose contempt sanctions against Mr. Juarez at this time, but admonishes Mr.

  • Hearing

    Nov 05, 2020

RODRIGUEZ VS HERNANDEZ

Plaintiff's Order to Show Cause Re Contempt A proceeding for indirect contempt is initiated by the filing of an affidavit and a request for an order to show cause. Code Civ. Proc., § 1211(a); Cedars-Sinai Imaging Medical Group v. Superior Court (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1281, 1286. In its opposition, Productora seems to focus on its view that plaintiff will not be able to prove contempt. That is not the question for this stage of the proceeding.

  • Hearing

    Nov 05, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

GUNNLAUGER PETUR ERLENDSSON VS DAVID GLASSER ET AL

Proc. §1209 allows courts to issue contempt sanctions for disobedience of lawful court orders. Under Cal Code of Civ. Proc. §1211, when contempt is committed outside the presence of the court, an affidavit or declaration must be presented of the facts constituting contempt.

  • Hearing

    Nov 04, 2020

SCHLOMO SCHMUEL VS. CASPAR MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC

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.) The court may, on motion or on the court’s own motion after giving notice and an opportunity to be heard, make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon those terms and conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders. (Code of Civ.

  • Hearing

    Nov 04, 2020

ALLY BANK, A CORPORATION VS CHRISTOPHER LEE, AN INDIVIDUAL

Such an order must contain a notice to the defendant that failure to turn over possession of the property to plaintiff may subject the defendant to being held in contempt of court. Id. Based on Defendant’s default under the purchase agreement and the terms of such agreement which provide that Plaintiff is entitled to take possession of the vehicle upon such default, Plaintiff has established the probable validity of its right to possession of the vehicle. (See Vang Decl. and Ex.A and B thereto).

  • Hearing

    Nov 03, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

TAYLOR, BEAN WHITAKER MORTGAGE CORP. VS. ZACARIAS

It appears that filing of the instant motion does not rises to the level of a contempt of court. Prevailing party to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Nov 01, 2020

CITY OF MONROVIA VS PAULINE WHITE, ET AL

Subdivision (d) provides that a violation of this section may be punishable as contempt and warrant sanctions. Subdivision (e) provides “No application to reconsider any order or for the renewal of a previous motion may be considered by any judge or court unless made according to this section.”

  • Hearing

    Oct 30, 2020

SATTERLEE V. SMIRL

“…in all cases where a party has an attorney in the action or proceeding, the service of papers, when required, must be upon the attorney instead of the party, except service of subpoenas, of writs, and other process issued in the suit, and of papers to bring the party into contempt…” (Code of Civil Procedure, § 1015.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 30, 2020

MANZANO V. WELLS FARGO BANK

To deter parties from filing noncompliant renewed applications, the Legislature provided that “[a] violation of this section may be punished as a contempt and with sanctions as allowed by Section 128.7.” (§ 1008, subd. (d).) ¶ We have recognized only one exception to section 1008's “jurisdiction[al]” (id., subd. (e)) exclusivity. In Le Francois v.

  • Hearing

    Oct 30, 2020

ROYTER VS KORELOV

Accordingly, Plaintiffs' request to fin Savkina in contempt and award attorney fees to Plaintiffs is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

SALEM VS LEONNE

This motion is not a contempt proceeding. THEREFORE, the motion for sanctions is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

DESCHENES VS BUREAU D ELECTRONIQUE APPLIQUEE BEA INC

Plaintiff may, if desired, pursue contempt proceedings against Mr. Caspino.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

DESCHENES VS BUREAU D ELECTRONIQUE APPLIQUEE BEA INC

Plaintiff may, if desired, pursue contempt proceedings against Mr. Caspino.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ROYTER VS KORELOV

Accordingly, Plaintiffs' request to fin Savkina in contempt and award attorney fees to Plaintiffs is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

SALEM VS LEONNE

This motion is not a contempt proceeding. THEREFORE, the motion for sanctions is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

IN THE MATTER OF EVA ANNIKA NOWLIN

Set for OSC re Contempt for failure to comply with court order of 7/16/20. Proposed Order to be lodged prior to hearing per Local Rule 10.00.D.1. __________________ The court discourages in-person appearances in Department J6 during the COVID-19 pandemic period. Appearances in Department J6 should be made by CourtCall (audio or video) whenever possible. A very limited number of people will be allowed in Department J6 at one time to comply with safety protocols.

  • Hearing

    Oct 28, 2020

  • Type

    Probate

  • Sub Type

    Trust

IN THE MATTER OF EVA ANNIKA NOWLIN

Set for OSC re Contempt for failure to comply with court order of 7/16/20. Proposed Order to be lodged prior to hearing per Local Rule 10.00.D.1. __________________ The court discourages in-person appearances in Department J6 during the COVID-19 pandemic period. Appearances in Department J6 should be made by CourtCall (audio or video) whenever possible. A very limited number of people will be allowed in Department J6 at one time to comply with safety protocols.

  • Hearing

    Oct 28, 2020

  • Type

    Probate

  • Sub Type

    Trust

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 159     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.