Contempt is any act, in or out of court, “which tends to impede, embarrass or obstruct the court in the discharge of its duties.” (In re Shortridge (1893) 99 Cal. 526, 532.) Conduct which constitutes civil contempt of court includes “[m]isbehavior in office, or other willful neglect or violation of duty by an attorney, counsel, clerk, sheriff, coroner, or other person, appointed or elected to perform a judicial or ministerial service.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 1209(a)(3).) Disobedience of any lawful judgment, order, or process of the court also constitutes contempt of the authority of the Court. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 1209(a)(5).)

A contempt proceeding is not a criminal action or proceeding, but it is a special proceeding, criminal in character, governed by the Code of Civil Procedure and is intended to implement the inherent power of the court to conduct the business of the court and enforce the lawful orders of the court—not to punish for an offense. (Pac. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Super. Ct. for Los Angeles County (1968) 265 Cal.App.2d 370, 371-72.)

Legal Standard

Generally, civil contempt is a forward-looking remedy imposed to coerce compliance with a lawful order of the court. (Shillitani v. United States (1966) 384 U.S. 364, 368; Morelli v. Super. Ct. (1969) 1 Cal.3d 328, 332.) In order to make a finding of contempt for the failure to comply with an order, the Court must find that:

1. the order was issued,
2. the accused had knowledge of the order,
3. the accused had the ability to obey it, and
4. the accused willfully disobeyed the order.

(In re Jones (1975) 47 Cal.App.3d 879, 881; Wanke, Indus., Commercial, Residential, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1151.)

“To hold a person in constructive contempt for wilful disobedience of a court order, the order must be in writing or must be entered in the court's minutes.” (Ketscher v. Super. Ct. (1970) 9 Cal.App.3d 601, 604-605.) The order must be clear, specific, and unequivocal. (Wilson v. Super. Ct. (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 1259, 1273.) “[A] writing is essential to avoid the uncertainty that can arise when attempting to enforce an oral ruling.” (In re Marcus (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1009, 1016.) “An oral ruling is subject to varying memories and may not be clear or specific. Nor is an oral ruling necessarily the unequivocal decision of the court. A court may change its ruling until such time as the ruling is reduced to writing and becomes the order of the court. Thus it is that only precise court orders as written may be enforced by contempt.” (Id.)

“Any ambiguity in a decree or order must be resolved in favor of an alleged contemnor.” (In re Blaze (1969) 271 Cal.App.2d 210, 212.) Punishment for contempt “can only rest upon clear, intentional violation of a specific, narrowly drawn order. Specificity is an essential prerequisite of a contempt citation.” (In re Marcus, supra, 138 Cal.App.4th at p. 1016; Wilson v. Super. Ct. (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 1259, 1273.) And the acts constituting the contempt must be clearly and specifically prohibited by the terms of the underlying order. (Brunton v. Super. Ct. of Los Angeles County (1942) 20 Cal.2d 202, 205.)

Indirect Contempt

“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, or a statement of the facts by the referees or arbitrators, or other judicial officers.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 1211(a).) Thereafter, an order to show cause must be issued and a hearing on the facts must be held by the Court. (Arthur v. Super. Ct. (1965) 62 Cal.2d 404, 407-408.)

“The party charged with contempt is entitled to a hearing at which, by affidavits or witnesses or both, that party may present defenses.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 1217; Collins v. Super. Ct. (1956) 145 Cal.2d 588, 594, 302 P.2d 805.) Because the proceeding is criminal in nature, the individual subject to contempt possesses “some of the rights of a criminal defendant.” (People v. Gonzalez (1996) 12 Cal.4th 804, 816.) The hearing may not be held in the absence of the alleged contemner or counsel unless there is a finding [supported by evidence] that the alleged contemner is voluntarily absent. (Farace v. Super. Ct. (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 915, 918.) The party charged may not be compelled to give testimony against himself or herself. (Oliver v. Super. Ct. (1961) 197 Cal.2d 237, 240.) A verified answer to the affidavit is not a waiver of the right to refuse to testify; it is similar in effect to a plea of not guilty in a criminal case. (In re Ferguson (1954) 123 Cal.2d 799, 801, 268 P.2d 71.)

“[I]n a contempt proceeding the burden is on the party seeking to have a person adjudged guilty of contempt to establish his charges against the alleged contemner by competent evidence.” (Ransom v. Super. Ct. (1968) 262 Cal.App.2d 271, 275-276; Bone v. Super. Ct. for Los Angeles County (1966) 245 Cal.App.2d 972, 973-974.) In a proceeding for indirect contempt, a person cannot be deprived of property or liberty without adequate procedural safeguards, including “evidence having been offered against him in accordance with the established rules.” (Bone v. Super. Ct., supra, 245 Cal.App.2d at p. 973.)

The Court may find the accused guilty of indirect contempt only if it is proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knew of the order, had the ability to obey it, and willfully disobeyed it; the Court’s order must recite the issuance of an order, the accused's knowledge of the order, the accused's ability to obey it, and the accused's willful disobedience. (In re Jones (1975) 47 Cal.App.3d 879, 881.) While the proceeding is governed by the criminal trial standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, there is no requirement that the record show that the judge followed that standard; the presumption that an official duty has been performed applies. (Ross v. Super. Ct. (1977) 19 Cal.3d 899, 913, 141 C.R. 133, 569 P.2d 727.)

Procedure

A contempt proceeding is commenced by the filing of an affidavit and a request for an order to show cause. (Cedars-Sinai Imaging Medical Group v. Super. Ct. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1281, 1286.)

An indirect contempt must be brought before the Court for trial through the presentation of an affidavit describing the nature of the disobedience or contempt of the Court’s authority. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 1211(a); Arthur v. Super. Ct. of Los Angeles County (1965) 62 Cal.2d 404, 407-408.) “The affidavit is like a complaint in a criminal case; it frames the issues and must charge facts which show a contempt has been committed.” (Reliable Enterprises, Inc. v. Superior Court (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 604, 616.) It must state facts sufficient to show the commission of the contempt. (In re Donovan (1950) 96 Cal.App.2d 693, 698.)

This affidavit is a jurisdictional prerequisite for setting a contempt for trial. (In re Koehler (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1153, 1169.) The initiating affidavit is fatally defective if it does not allege the accused had notice or knowledge of the existence of the court order at the time he or she is claimed to have violated it. (Freeman v. Super. Ct. (1955) 44 Cal.2d 533, 537.)

If the court is satisfied that the affidavit alleges sufficient grounds for contempt, it signs an “OSC re: Contempt,” setting the date and time for a hearing. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 1212.) The OSC and affidavit ordinarily must be served on respondent in a manner authorized for service of summons. (Cedars-Sinai Imaging Medical Group v. Super. Ct. of Los Angeles County (Moore) (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1281, 1286.)

Even though the contempt proceeding is usually commenced by an affidavit filed in the main action, the contempt proceeding is separate and distinct; participation in a contempt proceeding is not a general appearance in the main action. (Bank of America v. Carr (1956) 138 Cal.2d 727, 733, 292 P.2d 587.)

Penalty

The penalties statutorily available for contempt of court are

1. a fine not exceeding $1,000,
2. imprisonment not exceeding 5 days,
3. both a fine and imprisonment, or
4. payment of atty fees/costs to initiating party where the contemnor is adjudged guilty of contempt for violating a court order.

(H.J. Heinz Co. v. Super. Ct. (1954) 42 Cal.2d 164, 173–174.)