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)

151-175 of 3970 results

KYLE KIMMEL VS THAO

Kimmel ("Plaintiff")'s motion for an order to show cause re: contempt and for enforcement of a court order against nonparty T-Mobile USA, Inc. ("T-Mobile") is granted in part.

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ARTHUR RENTERIA VS. 737 HAMBURGERS, INC.

Michigan Millers (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 306, 328), which is so extreme it rouses the contempt and outrage of reasonable people (American Airlines, Inc. v. Sheppard. Mullin, Richter & Hampton (2002) 96 Cal,App.4th 1017, 1050-1051). “In order to survive a motion to strike an allegation of punitive damages, the ultimate facts showing an entitlement to such relief must be pleaded by a plaintiff. [Citation.]” (Clausen v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255; Turman v. Turning Point of Cent.

  • Hearing

    Oct 14, 2020

TULLY VS CHOUINARD

“Libel is a false and unprivileged publication…, which exposes any person to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, or which causes him to be shunned or avoided, or which has a tendency to injure him in his occupation.” (Civil Code § 45.) In addition, when the plaintiff is a public figure or limited public figure, the plaintiff must show that the defendant acted with malice. (Ampex Corp. v. Cargle (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1569, 1577.) Defendant admits that he made the various alleged posts.

  • Hearing

    Oct 09, 2020

ORTIZ VS. BAYSIDE INSURANCE ASSOCIATES, INC.

On the County’s motion, the trial court found Father in contempt and ordered him imprisoned. Father appealed, arguing the AFDC payments were a judgment on a debt owed and thus not enforceable by contempt. The County argued the AFDC payments should be considered a child support order, which is enforceable by contempt. (Id., at pp. 229-30.) The Court of Appeal agreed with Father.

  • Hearing

    Oct 09, 2020

JOHN PARK V. PETER LUNARDI, ET AL.

This characterization and allusion to punishment as contempt is unreasonable. Footnote 3:

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 2020

BARRY WALKER VS. MAHMOUD MIKE ASSI

Similarly, it is unnecessary for the Court to issue an order to show cause re contempt under these circumstances. The judgment creditor may employ other mechanisms to collect on the judgment. This is the tentative ruling for an appearance hearing at 1:30 p.m. on Friday, October 9, 2020. If no party appears at the hearing, this tentative ruling will become the order of the Court as of October 9, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

JOSEPH R SORIA VS LIFETIME SOLUTIONS INC

“Disobedience to a subpoena, or a refusal to be sworn, or to answer as a witness, or to subscribe an affidavit or deposition when required, may be punished as a contempt by the court issuing the subpoena.” (CCP §1991.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

IN RE MARQUEZ FAMILY GRANTOR TRUST

On 12/18/19, the Court set an OSC re Contempt due to the trustee's failure to file the account. As of 9/27/20, the account still has not been filed. On 2/5/20, the Court suspended the trustee's powers. The Court set an OSC re Removal for Failure to File Account and required the mandatory appearance by the trustee Roger Williams. The Court also ordered Jordyn Williams to arrange for an inspection/appraisal date on the real property located at 1044 S.

  • Hearing

    Oct 07, 2020

  • Type

    Probate

  • Sub Type

    Trust

L & J ASSOCIATES LLC VS RONALD P MCCABE ET AL

The first step in a contempt proceeding is the filing of a sufficient affidavit. (Koehler v. Superior Court (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1153, 1169 [“It has long been the rule that the filing of a sufficient affidavit is a jurisdictional prerequisite to a contempt proceeding”].) The affidavit must recite the facts constituting contempt. (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 07, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

KURT OLDMAN, ET AL. VS TYLER BATES, ET AL.

“Libel is a false and unprivileged publication by writing, printing … which exposes any person to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, … or which has a tendency to injure him in his occupation.” Civ. Code § 45. Defendant Bates alleges Plaintiff Hartmann committed defamation when he wrote, in an e-mail to Bates and his agent: Half a day’s work for five minutes of music? That would take you two weeks at least.

  • Hearing

    Oct 07, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

SHELLY HART VS COURTNEY SULLIVAN, ET AL.

Plaintiff requests issue, evidentiary, contempt, and monetary sanctions. Plaintiff also requests an order compelling compliance with the Court’s previous order compelling production of the Sullivan file, the Bethany Lazo file, videos, and discovery requests propounded on Legacy and Sapp on July 13, 2020. II.

  • Hearing

    Oct 07, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

GUARDIANSHIP OF CADEN WALKER, ET AL.

Failure to file the accounting within the time specified under subdivision (a), or within 45 days of actual receipt of the notice, whichever is later, shall constitute a contempt of the authority of the court as described in Section 1209 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is recommended the Court continue the hearing to November 2, 2002, and set the matter to show cause why an accounting is on file. The accounting must be filed 10 days before that hearing date in order to be considered.

  • Hearing

    Oct 05, 2020

  • Judge Jed Beebe
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

DOE VS. CARL’S JR.-MISSION VIEJO

Motion of Order Re: OSC Re: Contempt CONTINUED TO 10/26/20 PER EX PARTE HEARD ON 10/1/20

  • Hearing

    Oct 05, 2020

CHRISTIAN SPANNHOFF, ET AL., VS DEREK AGHCHAY

Spanhnoff’s Motion for OSC Re: Contempt When contempt occurs outside the presence of the court, the party seeking an order of contempt must present a declaration showing: (1) a valid order, (2) respondent’s knowledge of the order, (3) ability to comply, and (4) willful disobedience of the order. Conn v. Superior Court (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 774.

  • Hearing

    Oct 05, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Disobedience of the order by a vexatious litigant may be punished as a contempt of court.

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

KIDECKEL VS LEMONADE INSURANCE HEARING ON MOTION TO/FOR (1) B.KIDECKEL (2)REQ FURNISH SECURTIY (3) PRE FILING - VEXATIOUS LITIGANT.

Disobedience of the order by a vexatious litigant may be punished as a contempt of court.” The Court orders that a prefiling order be entered prohibiting Plaintiff Brent Kideckel from filing any new litigation in the courts of this state in propria persona without first obtaining leave of the presiding justice or presiding judge of the court where the litigation is proposed to be filed.

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

IRAKLI GOGIBERIDZE VS ANATOLIY CHIZMAR

Plaintiff argues defendant took partnership funds in violation of the prior order of this court (9/27/18) and seeks an OSC re contempt and terminating sanctions. The court cannot address such issues on an ex parte basis. Plaintiff may file any motions he deems appropriate. The court will set an OSC re: dissipation of partnership funds/violation of court order to allow defendant an opportunity to address these issues.

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

AMERICAN/BCEGZ ET AL VS SHORES LLC ET AL

Legal Standard Where a party engages in misuse of discovery process, the court may impose monetary, issue, evidence, terminating, or contempt sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

KAIRI HARVIG VS XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Thereafter, Plaintiff alleges that she pursued the fraudulent credit charges by and through a contempt proceeding in Plaintiff and Defendant’s underlying divorce action (Case No. BD621055), resulting in a plea of no contest by Defendant, a fine of $1,000.00 and 16 hours of community service. Plaintiff filed the instant action on November 28, 2018 and a First Amended Complaint on June 25, 2020, alleging four (4) causes of action sounding in (1) Conversion; and (2) Violation of Pen.

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL FLAHERTY VS BRITTANY JEAN OWEN

Nature of Proceedings: Order to Show Cause: Contempt Setting This matter is on calendar for Contempt setting. Appearance required.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

DENEEN K AHLUWALIA VS JAGGER CHASE

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

    Oct 01, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

ROSEN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. VS BOOKSTEIN

The Motion for Order Citing David Mickelson for Contempt of Court and for Money Sanctions brought by plaintiff Rosen & Associates, P.C. is DENIED. The request for a contempt citation is predicated upon a Temporary Restraining Order that expired on or about February 10, 2020. (ROA 136 and 158 (the initial TRO order and a later order on a motion for preliminary injunction hearing that extended the effect of the TRO for another 20 days).) Accordingly, the request lacks merit.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

EDWARD VS. DANA POINT TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION

. , which exposes any person to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, or which causes him to be shunned or avoided, or which has a tendency to injure him in his occupation. (Civ. Code § 45.) Further, libel per se “is defamatory of the plaintiff without necessity of explanatory matter, such as an inducement, innuendo or other extrinsic fact.”

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

ODG SWEEGEN LLC VS CHEN

(Motion: 10: fn. 1); however, both actions are distinguishable as they concern contempt proceedings for injunctions which were ultimately found not to be stayed. (See Ohaver, supra, 206 Cal. at 122; See also In re Ringgold (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1009-1010). Also, the above authorities, while indicating a court may enforce injunctions which are not stayed, do not stand for the proposition that a Court may modify an order which has been appealed.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

SMITH VS LOYA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

He alleges also that he was made aware a year later when his friends and acquaintances began to "express hatred, contempt, ridicule and obloquy..." (p. 3:3-8) Defendant published the alleged defamatory statement on June 21, 2012, making the one-year statute of limitation deadline June 21, 2013. Both Lexis and national broadcasts are mass media publications, meaning the Uniform Single Publication Act applies. Plaintiff filed the instant action on December 9, 2019-over six years after the deadline.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Defamation

  « 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.