Preview
Mark T. Coffin, State Bar No. 168571 ELECTRONICALLY FILED
1 Scott A. Jaske, State Bar No. PL-461842 Superior Court of California
MARK T. COFFIN, P.C. County of Santa Barbara
2
21 E. Carrillo Street, Suite 240 Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer
3 Santa Barbara, California 93101 3/8/2021 4:02 PM
Telephone: (805) 248-7118 By: Terri Chavez, Deputy
4 Facsimile: (866) 567-4028
Email: mtc@markcoffinlaw.com
5 Email: scott@markcoffinlaw.com
6 Attorneys for Plaintiff DAVID G. BERTRAND and DOROTHY CHURCHILL-JOHNSON
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
9 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
10
11 DAVID G. BERTRAND, an Individual, Case No. 19CV02429
DOROTHY CHURCHILL-JOHNSON, an
12 Individual, NOTICE OF RULING ON ORDER TO
13 SHOW CAUSE FOR CONTEMPT OF
Plaintiff,
COURT BY DEFENDANT JESSICA
14 vs. BERRY
15 JESSICA BERRY, an Individual, and DOES 1 Date: Monday, March 8, 2021
through 100, Inclusive, Time: 10:00 a.m.
16
Dept: 5
Defendants.
17
18 Assigned for all purposes to the
Hon. Colleen K. Sterne
19 Dept: 5
Complaint Date: May 7, 2019
20 Trial Date: March 22, 2021
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
NOTICE OF RULING ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT BY DEFENDANT JESSICA
BERRY
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the hearing on Order to Show Cause Why Defendant Jessica
Berry Should Not Be Held In Contempt Of Court in the above-captioned matter was held on
March 8, 2021, at 10:00 a.m. in Department 5 of the Santa Barbara Superior Court located at 1100
Anacapa Street, Santa Barbara, CA 93101, Honorable Colleen K. Sterne presiding. A true and
correct copy of the Court’s Tentative Ruling is attached hereto as Exhibit A. At the hearing, the
Court ordered:
\DOO\10\
1. Plaintiffs’ Application for Order to Show Cause (OSC) re: Contempt is granted.
2. Defendant Jessica Berry is found to be in Contempt of Court, but is allowed to purge the
10 Contempt by complying with the Court’s December 1, 2020 and February 3, 2021 Orders by
11 immediately serving complete, verified, objection-free responses to Plaintiffs’ Supplemental
12 Discovery by close of business on Tuesday, March 9, 2021.
13 Defendant Jessica Berry is Ordered to submit to a continued deposition in the case Via Zoom,
14 on Friday, March 12, 2021, at 10:00 a.m., pursuant to written Notice from Plaintiffs.
15 Defendant Jessica Berry shall respond to deposition questions in good faith, in a civil
16 manner, without unnecessary argument or ad hominem commentary.
17 Defendant Jessica Berry shall pay sanctions to Plaintiffs in the amount of $1,000.00 for fees
18 and costs incurred in connection with Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application for Order to Show
19 Cause (OSC) re:Contempt.
20 The Trial Setting Conference for Santa Barbara Superior Court Case Numbers: 19CV02357,
21 19CV02429, 20CV03259, and 20CV03231 were continued to March 22, 2021, at 11:30 a.m.,
22 in Department 5 of the above-captioned Court.
23 Defendant Jessica Berry’s address of record for service of process in this case shall be
24 BerryJessicaO37@gmail.com.
25 Moving Parties may also use the electronic mailing address of Befllessica037@gmail.com
26 for service in Santa Barbara Superior Court Case Numbers: 19CV02357, 20CV03259, and
27 20CV03231.
28
2
NOTICE OF RULING ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT BY DEFENDANT JESSICA
BERRY
DATED: March 8, 202l MARK T. COFFIN, RC.
b-J
By:
Ma . Coffin, Esq.
SC A‘ Jaske. Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs DAVID G. BIiR'I'RAND
and DOROTHY Cl-IURCHILL-JOl-INSON
ID
11
12
I3
14
15
16
17
1%
l9
2”
2|
22
23
24
25
26
2'?
3
DEFENDAN'I' JESSICA
NOTICE 01" lilJlJNG ON ORIJI-IR TO SHOW CALIHF, FOR CON'I‘l-LMP’T 0F COURT HY
BERRY
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
10
11
11
12
12
EXHIBIT A
13
13
14
14
EXHIBIT A
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
18
19
19
20
20
21
21
22
22
23
23
24
24
25
25
26
26
27
27
28
28
EXHIBIT
EXHIBIT A A
Superior Court of the County of Santa Barbara —
Online Services —
Tenati... https://www.sbcourts.org/os/tr/tentative—detaiI.php?RuleID=63665
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
TENTATIVE RULIN G
Judge Colleen Sterne
Department 5 SB-Anacapa
1100 Anacapa Street P.O. Box 21107 Santa Barbara, CA 93121-1107
CIVIL LAW & MOTION
David G. Bertrand, et al. v. Jessica Berry
Case No: 19CV02429
Hearing Date: Mon Mar 08, 2021 10:00
Nature of Proceedings: Order to Show Cause re Contempt
Hearing Via Zoom; Meeting ID 959 8605 7786; Password 3069002
Tentative
CASE:
David G. Bertrand, et al. v. Jessica Berry, Case No. 19CV02429 (Judge Sterne)
HEARING DATE: March 8, 2021
MATTER: Order to Show Cause re Contempt
ATTORNEYS:
Mark T. Coffin for Plaintiffs David G. Bertrand and Dorothy Churchill-Johnson
Jessica Berry, Defendant, In Pro Per
TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiffs’ application for order to show cause (0 SC) re
contempt is granted as set forth herein.
10f5 3/8/2021, 9:36 AM
Superior Court of the County of Santa Barbara —
Online Services —
Tenatim https://Www‘sbcourts.org/os/tr/tentative—detail‘php?RuleID=63665
BACKGROUND:
Plaintiff David G. Bertrand (“Bertrand”) is the owner of multiple residential
properties in Santa Barbara, California. Plaintiff Dorothy Churchill-Johnson
(“Churchill—Johnson”) is Bertrand’s business manager. For many years, defendant
Jessica Berry (“Berry”) rented one of Bertrand’s residences and occasionally assisted
him with his other rental properties by advertising vacancies, speaking with
prospective tenants, and arranging for maintenance and repair services. In October
2017 after the expiration of her lease Berry was asked to vacate her residence, but
she refused, forcing Bertrand to file a complaint for unlawful detainer Following her
eviction, Berry allegedly engaged 1n numerous disparaging and defamatory written
communications with third parties about Bertrand and Churchill-Johnson.
On May 7, 2019, plaintiffs filed their complaint for (1) libel, (2) defamation per se,
(3) intrusion, (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (5) unfair business
practices, (6) elder abuse, (7) quantum meruit, and (8) unjust enrichment/restitution.
Berry’s default was taken, but the court set aside the default and Berry answered the
complaint on October 30, 2019 with a general denial. Since then, Berry has allegedly
disregarded two court orders regarding discovery. She also failed to appear at the
Mandatory Settlement Conference on February 19, 2021.
Plaintiffs now apply to the court for an order to show cause as to Why Berry should
not be held in contempt. Berry opposes the application.
ANALYSIS:
Code of Civil Procedure Section 1209 provides in relevant part:
“(a) The following acts or omissions in respect to a court of justice, or proceedings
2 of5 3/8/2021, 9:36 AM
Superior Court of the County of Santa Barbara —
Online Services —
Tenatim https://Www‘sbcourts.org/os/tr/tentative—detail‘php?RuleID=63665
therein, are contempts of the authority of the court:
“(5) Disobedience of any lawful judgment, order, or process of the court.”
Disobedience of a lawful court order is a contempt of the authority of the court.
Silvagni v. Superior Court (1958) 157 Ca1.App.2d 287, 291. The predicate facts
essential to a finding of contempt are: (1) the making of an order; (2) knowledge of
the order; (3) ability of the respondent to render compliance; and (4) wilful
disobedience of the order. In re Liu (1969) 273 Ca1.App.2d 135, 140. A party found
guilty of contempt may be punished by a fine up to $1, 000 and imprisonment up to
five days or both Code Civ. Proc. §1218 subd. (3). The guilty party may also be
ordered to pay the opposing party’s attorney’s fees 1n connection with the contempt
proceedings [bid
In the present case, two discovery orders were issued by the court concerning
defendant Berry. On November 9, 2020, plaintiffs moved the court for an order
compelling Berry to answer supplemental interrogatories and supplemental requests
for production, Without objections, and to appear remotely at her deposition no later
than December 10, 2020. The court granted the motion and entered its order on
December 1, 2020. (Jaske Dec., 1] 3, Ex. B.) Berry had knowledge of the order as she
attended the hearing on the motion Via Zoom. (Jaske Dec., 1]5, Ex. D.) A true and
correct copy of the order was also served on Berry Via electronic mail on December
2, 2020. (Jaske Dec., 1] 6, Ex. E.) At all times Berry was capable of providing
supplemental written responses to plaintiffs” supplemental discovery and attending
her deposition remotely on December 10, 2020, but she chose not to provide
additional responses as set forth in the order or to participate in her deposition in any
meaningful way as she left the deposition after only an hour. (Motion, pp. 423—9,
927—1 1.)
On February 3, 2021, plaintiffs sought terminating sanctions against Berry, together
with an order striking her answer and entering her default or In the alternative, 3
second order compelling Berry to respond to plaintiffs’ supplemental written
discovery and to attend her continued deposition V1a Zoom The court granted
plaintiffs’ modified motion and ordered Berry to provide verified responses to
plaintiffs’ supplemental discovery, Without objections, by February 8, 2021, and to
submit to her continued deposition on February 16, 2021. (Jaske Dec., 11 4,
Ex. C.)
Berry had knowledge of the court’s February 3, 2021 order as she personally attended
the hearing on the motion. (J aske Dec., 1] 7, Ex. F.) On February 3, 2021, plaintiffs”
3 of5 3/8/2021, 9:36 AM
Superior Court of the County of Santa Barbara —
Online Services —
Tenatim https://Www‘sbcourts.org/os/tr/tentative—detail‘php?RuleID=63665
counsel also transmitted to Berry Via electronic mail a copy of the court’s order.
(Jaske Dec., 1] 8, EX. G.) As with the previous court order, Berry had the ability to
comply with the order, but failed to serve any additional discovery responses, forcing
plaintiffs to continue her deposition set for February 16, 2021. (Motion, pp. 4:21—52,
9: 12—16.)
A Mandatory Settlement Conference was set for February 19, 2021, at 8:30 a.m.,
online Via Zoom. Plaintiffs attended the conference along with their counsel, but
Berry failed to appear. (MSC Minute Order, 2-19-21.)
On February 24, 2021,p1aintiffs filed their ex parte application for order to ShOW
cause (“OSC”) Why Berry should not be held 1n contempt or, 1n the alternative, for
order shortening time for notice of application The court granted plaintiffs’ ex parte
application for order shortening time on February 25, 2021, and set the OSC hearing
for March 8, 2021, at 10: 00 a m (Order on Ex Parte App for OSC, filed 2- 25- 21 .)
Berry was ordered to file any opposition by March 4,2021 (Ibid) In its order the
court confirmed the Trial Confirmation Conference of March 8,2021
In her opposition, Berry devotes considerable time arguing the merits of plaintiffs’
claims for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and the like, but
offers no explanation for her failure to abide by the court’s previous discovery orders,
other than to say that it would be “impossible for [her] to answer [the discovery
questions] without providing validation to the fraud [perpetrated by plaintiffs]?
(Opp., p 13: 24— 26 ) Berry contends that the lawsuit ls “plagued with frauds and
misinformation” and IS intended to make her ‘walk away from the crimes [Bertrand]
committed against her.” (Opp. p 2:2— 16.
) Berry alleges that‘ ‘[a]udio recordings a
signed contract, emails, business documents, and text messages. irrefutably prove
the claims 0fthis lawsuit are without merit” (Opp., pp 11: 21- 12:5 ) Finally, Berry
alleges that Bertrand illegally evicted her from her residence. (Opp., p. 7:20.)
The court finds Berry in contempt of two lawful court orders. As detailed in
plaintiffs’ papers, defendant was served with a copy of the court’s December 1, 2020
discovery order Via electronic mail on December 2, 2020 (Jaske Dec., 1] 6, Ex. E) and
the court’s February 3, 2021 discovery order Via electronic mail on the day of the
order. (J aske Dec., 1]8, Ex. G). Berry also attended the hearings on plaintiffs’
discovery motions, personally or Via Zoom, and had direct knowledge of the orders.
(Jaske Dec., 11 5, EX. D, 1]7, Ex. F.) Berry has presented no evidence of her inability
to provide further responses to plaintiffs” supplemental interrogatories and
4 of5 3/8/2021, 9:36 AM
Superior Court of the County of Santa Barbara —
Online Services —
Tenatim https://Www‘sbcourts.org/os/tr/tentative—detail‘php?RuleID=63665
supplemental requests for production or her inability to attend the continued session
of her deposition. She also has offered no explanation for her failure to attend the
Mandatory Settlement Conference.
The court will issue an intefim order finding Berry in contempt, but will allow her to
purge the contempt by complying with the court’s December 1, 2020 and February 3,
2021 orders by immediately servmg further responses to plaintiffs’ supplemental
discovery requests and by attending her continued deposition on or before March 12,
2021. Berry shall also pay sanctions to plaintiffs in the amount of $1 ,000.00 for fees
and costs incurred in connection with these proceedings.
The Trial Confirmation Conference is ordered continued from March 8, 2021 to
March 22, 2021, at 11:30 a.m., in this department.
© 2021 Superior Court of the County of Santa Barbara
5 of5 3/8/2021, 9:36 AM
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA BA RBARA
I am employed in [has Cnunty of Santa Barbara. State oFCalifomia. I am over the age of [8
years and not a party to this action. My business address is 21 E. Carrillo Street, Suite 240, Sama
Barbarm California 93101 . On March 8. 2021, I served the foregoing documents described as
NOTICE OF RL'LING 0N ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CUN'I‘EMPT OF COURT BY
DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY, on the interested parties in this action:
Address -
Party
Jessica Berry
JESSE-'24 BERRY: in pro PW-
H: Herr\-'"c.~i$jicaU3TrifiumaiLcum
BY U.S. MAIL: This document was served by United States mail through the US Postal
Service. 1enclosed the documsnt in a sealed envelope or package addressed tn the pcrsomfsj
at the addressLE-s} above and placed the enveiopc(s) for coilection and mailing, {showing our
ordinary business practices. I am readily famiiiar with [his firm’s practice of colicctlng and
procesfiing correspondence for mailing. 0n the same day that correspondence is placed For
collection and mailing, itis dcpositcd [nthe nrdinary course of business with the United
Statcs Postal Service: at Santa Barbara, California, in a sealed envelope with postage qy
paid.
VIA EMAIL: served the documents above on all parties via electronic mail. to the
M I
addresses as listed on the attached service list, foHowing my employer‘s business practice For
collection and processing ofmrrespondcncc. Such electronic transmission was reported as
complete and without error on this date.
El (State) I declare under penalty ofpcrjury under the laws of the State ofCaEifnrnia that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on March 3, 2021, at Santa Barbara, Califomia.
w
gb'fil‘lt
A. Jaskc
M
4
NOTICE. OF Rl ELING ON ORDIER 'I'r: SHOW CAUNl-L |-'OR CONTEMPI' 0F COURT BY
Dt-ZE-‘ENDANT J1£53143».
Ian-:kkv
Preview
Mark T. Coffin, State Bar No. 168571 ELECTRONICALLY FILED 1 Scott A. Jaske, State Bar No. PL-461842 Superior Court of California MARK T. COFFIN, P.C. County of Santa Barbara 2 21 E. Carrillo Street, Suite 240 Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer 3 Santa Barbara, California 93101 3/8/2021 4:02 PM Telephone: (805) 248-7118 By: Terri Chavez, Deputy 4 Facsimile: (866) 567-4028 Email: mtc@markcoffinlaw.com 5 Email: scott@markcoffinlaw.com 6 Attorneys for Plaintiff DAVID G. BERTRAND and DOROTHY CHURCHILL-JOHNSON 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA 10 11 DAVID G. BERTRAND, an Individual, Case No. 19CV02429 DOROTHY CHURCHILL-JOHNSON, an 12 Individual, NOTICE OF RULING ON ORDER TO 13 SHOW CAUSE FOR CONTEMPT OF Plaintiff, COURT BY DEFENDANT JESSICA 14 vs. BERRY 15 JESSICA BERRY, an Individual, and DOES 1 Date: Monday, March 8, 2021 through 100, Inclusive, Time: 10:00 a.m. 16 Dept: 5 Defendants. 17 18 Assigned for all purposes to the Hon. Colleen K. Sterne 19 Dept: 5 Complaint Date: May 7, 2019 20 Trial Date: March 22, 2021 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 NOTICE OF RULING ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT BY DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the hearing on Order to Show Cause Why Defendant Jessica Berry Should Not Be Held In Contempt Of Court in the above-captioned matter was held on March 8, 2021, at 10:00 a.m. in Department 5 of the Santa Barbara Superior Court located at 1100 Anacapa Street, Santa Barbara, CA 93101, Honorable Colleen K. Sterne presiding. A true and correct copy of the Court’s Tentative Ruling is attached hereto as Exhibit A. At the hearing, the Court ordered: \DOO\10\ 1. Plaintiffs’ Application for Order to Show Cause (OSC) re: Contempt is granted. 2. Defendant Jessica Berry is found to be in Contempt of Court, but is allowed to purge the 10 Contempt by complying with the Court’s December 1, 2020 and February 3, 2021 Orders by 11 immediately serving complete, verified, objection-free responses to Plaintiffs’ Supplemental 12 Discovery by close of business on Tuesday, March 9, 2021. 13 Defendant Jessica Berry is Ordered to submit to a continued deposition in the case Via Zoom, 14 on Friday, March 12, 2021, at 10:00 a.m., pursuant to written Notice from Plaintiffs. 15 Defendant Jessica Berry shall respond to deposition questions in good faith, in a civil 16 manner, without unnecessary argument or ad hominem commentary. 17 Defendant Jessica Berry shall pay sanctions to Plaintiffs in the amount of $1,000.00 for fees 18 and costs incurred in connection with Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application for Order to Show 19 Cause (OSC) re:Contempt. 20 The Trial Setting Conference for Santa Barbara Superior Court Case Numbers: 19CV02357, 21 19CV02429, 20CV03259, and 20CV03231 were continued to March 22, 2021, at 11:30 a.m., 22 in Department 5 of the above-captioned Court. 23 Defendant Jessica Berry’s address of record for service of process in this case shall be 24 BerryJessicaO37@gmail.com. 25 Moving Parties may also use the electronic mailing address of Befllessica037@gmail.com 26 for service in Santa Barbara Superior Court Case Numbers: 19CV02357, 20CV03259, and 27 20CV03231. 28 2 NOTICE OF RULING ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT BY DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY DATED: March 8, 202l MARK T. COFFIN, RC. b-J By: Ma . Coffin, Esq. SC A‘ Jaske. Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiffs DAVID G. BIiR'I'RAND and DOROTHY Cl-IURCHILL-JOl-INSON ID 11 12 I3 14 15 16 17 1% l9 2” 2| 22 23 24 25 26 2'? 3 DEFENDAN'I' JESSICA NOTICE 01" lilJlJNG ON ORIJI-IR TO SHOW CALIHF, FOR CON'I‘l-LMP’T 0F COURT HY BERRY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 11 11 12 12 EXHIBIT A 13 13 14 14 EXHIBIT A 15 15 16 16 17 17 18 18 19 19 20 20 21 21 22 22 23 23 24 24 25 25 26 26 27 27 28 28 EXHIBIT EXHIBIT A A Superior Court of the County of Santa Barbara — Online Services — Tenati... https://www.sbcourts.org/os/tr/tentative—detaiI.php?RuleID=63665 THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA TENTATIVE RULIN G Judge Colleen Sterne Department 5 SB-Anacapa 1100 Anacapa Street P.O. Box 21107 Santa Barbara, CA 93121-1107 CIVIL LAW & MOTION David G. Bertrand, et al. v. Jessica Berry Case No: 19CV02429 Hearing Date: Mon Mar 08, 2021 10:00 Nature of Proceedings: Order to Show Cause re Contempt Hearing Via Zoom; Meeting ID 959 8605 7786; Password 3069002 Tentative CASE: David G. Bertrand, et al. v. Jessica Berry, Case No. 19CV02429 (Judge Sterne) HEARING DATE: March 8, 2021 MATTER: Order to Show Cause re Contempt ATTORNEYS: Mark T. Coffin for Plaintiffs David G. Bertrand and Dorothy Churchill-Johnson Jessica Berry, Defendant, In Pro Per TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiffs’ application for order to show cause (0 SC) re contempt is granted as set forth herein. 10f5 3/8/2021, 9:36 AM Superior Court of the County of Santa Barbara — Online Services — Tenatim https://Www‘sbcourts.org/os/tr/tentative—detail‘php?RuleID=63665 BACKGROUND: Plaintiff David G. Bertrand (“Bertrand”) is the owner of multiple residential properties in Santa Barbara, California. Plaintiff Dorothy Churchill-Johnson (“Churchill—Johnson”) is Bertrand’s business manager. For many years, defendant Jessica Berry (“Berry”) rented one of Bertrand’s residences and occasionally assisted him with his other rental properties by advertising vacancies, speaking with prospective tenants, and arranging for maintenance and repair services. In October 2017 after the expiration of her lease Berry was asked to vacate her residence, but she refused, forcing Bertrand to file a complaint for unlawful detainer Following her eviction, Berry allegedly engaged 1n numerous disparaging and defamatory written communications with third parties about Bertrand and Churchill-Johnson. On May 7, 2019, plaintiffs filed their complaint for (1) libel, (2) defamation per se, (3) intrusion, (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (5) unfair business practices, (6) elder abuse, (7) quantum meruit, and (8) unjust enrichment/restitution. Berry’s default was taken, but the court set aside the default and Berry answered the complaint on October 30, 2019 with a general denial. Since then, Berry has allegedly disregarded two court orders regarding discovery. She also failed to appear at the Mandatory Settlement Conference on February 19, 2021. Plaintiffs now apply to the court for an order to show cause as to Why Berry should not be held in contempt. Berry opposes the application. ANALYSIS: Code of Civil Procedure Section 1209 provides in relevant part: “(a) The following acts or omissions in respect to a court of justice, or proceedings 2 of5 3/8/2021, 9:36 AM Superior Court of the County of Santa Barbara — Online Services — Tenatim https://Www‘sbcourts.org/os/tr/tentative—detail‘php?RuleID=63665 therein, are contempts of the authority of the court: “(5) Disobedience of any lawful judgment, order, or process of the court.” Disobedience of a lawful court order is a contempt of the authority of the court. Silvagni v. Superior Court (1958) 157 Ca1.App.2d 287, 291. The predicate facts essential to a finding of contempt are: (1) the making of an order; (2) knowledge of the order; (3) ability of the respondent to render compliance; and (4) wilful disobedience of the order. In re Liu (1969) 273 Ca1.App.2d 135, 140. A party found guilty of contempt may be punished by a fine up to $1, 000 and imprisonment up to five days or both Code Civ. Proc. §1218 subd. (3). The guilty party may also be ordered to pay the opposing party’s attorney’s fees 1n connection with the contempt proceedings [bid In the present case, two discovery orders were issued by the court concerning defendant Berry. On November 9, 2020, plaintiffs moved the court for an order compelling Berry to answer supplemental interrogatories and supplemental requests for production, Without objections, and to appear remotely at her deposition no later than December 10, 2020. The court granted the motion and entered its order on December 1, 2020. (Jaske Dec., 1] 3, Ex. B.) Berry had knowledge of the order as she attended the hearing on the motion Via Zoom. (Jaske Dec., 1]5, Ex. D.) A true and correct copy of the order was also served on Berry Via electronic mail on December 2, 2020. (Jaske Dec., 1] 6, Ex. E.) At all times Berry was capable of providing supplemental written responses to plaintiffs” supplemental discovery and attending her deposition remotely on December 10, 2020, but she chose not to provide additional responses as set forth in the order or to participate in her deposition in any meaningful way as she left the deposition after only an hour. (Motion, pp. 423—9, 927—1 1.) On February 3, 2021, plaintiffs sought terminating sanctions against Berry, together with an order striking her answer and entering her default or In the alternative, 3 second order compelling Berry to respond to plaintiffs’ supplemental written discovery and to attend her continued deposition V1a Zoom The court granted plaintiffs’ modified motion and ordered Berry to provide verified responses to plaintiffs’ supplemental discovery, Without objections, by February 8, 2021, and to submit to her continued deposition on February 16, 2021. (Jaske Dec., 11 4, Ex. C.) Berry had knowledge of the court’s February 3, 2021 order as she personally attended the hearing on the motion. (J aske Dec., 1] 7, Ex. F.) On February 3, 2021, plaintiffs” 3 of5 3/8/2021, 9:36 AM Superior Court of the County of Santa Barbara — Online Services — Tenatim https://Www‘sbcourts.org/os/tr/tentative—detail‘php?RuleID=63665 counsel also transmitted to Berry Via electronic mail a copy of the court’s order. (Jaske Dec., 1] 8, EX. G.) As with the previous court order, Berry had the ability to comply with the order, but failed to serve any additional discovery responses, forcing plaintiffs to continue her deposition set for February 16, 2021. (Motion, pp. 4:21—52, 9: 12—16.) A Mandatory Settlement Conference was set for February 19, 2021, at 8:30 a.m., online Via Zoom. Plaintiffs attended the conference along with their counsel, but Berry failed to appear. (MSC Minute Order, 2-19-21.) On February 24, 2021,p1aintiffs filed their ex parte application for order to ShOW cause (“OSC”) Why Berry should not be held 1n contempt or, 1n the alternative, for order shortening time for notice of application The court granted plaintiffs’ ex parte application for order shortening time on February 25, 2021, and set the OSC hearing for March 8, 2021, at 10: 00 a m (Order on Ex Parte App for OSC, filed 2- 25- 21 .) Berry was ordered to file any opposition by March 4,2021 (Ibid) In its order the court confirmed the Trial Confirmation Conference of March 8,2021 In her opposition, Berry devotes considerable time arguing the merits of plaintiffs’ claims for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and the like, but offers no explanation for her failure to abide by the court’s previous discovery orders, other than to say that it would be “impossible for [her] to answer [the discovery questions] without providing validation to the fraud [perpetrated by plaintiffs]? (Opp., p 13: 24— 26 ) Berry contends that the lawsuit ls “plagued with frauds and misinformation” and IS intended to make her ‘walk away from the crimes [Bertrand] committed against her.” (Opp. p 2:2— 16. ) Berry alleges that‘ ‘[a]udio recordings a signed contract, emails, business documents, and text messages. irrefutably prove the claims 0fthis lawsuit are without merit” (Opp., pp 11: 21- 12:5 ) Finally, Berry alleges that Bertrand illegally evicted her from her residence. (Opp., p. 7:20.) The court finds Berry in contempt of two lawful court orders. As detailed in plaintiffs’ papers, defendant was served with a copy of the court’s December 1, 2020 discovery order Via electronic mail on December 2, 2020 (Jaske Dec., 1] 6, Ex. E) and the court’s February 3, 2021 discovery order Via electronic mail on the day of the order. (J aske Dec., 1]8, Ex. G). Berry also attended the hearings on plaintiffs’ discovery motions, personally or Via Zoom, and had direct knowledge of the orders. (Jaske Dec., 11 5, EX. D, 1]7, Ex. F.) Berry has presented no evidence of her inability to provide further responses to plaintiffs” supplemental interrogatories and 4 of5 3/8/2021, 9:36 AM Superior Court of the County of Santa Barbara — Online Services — Tenatim https://Www‘sbcourts.org/os/tr/tentative—detail‘php?RuleID=63665 supplemental requests for production or her inability to attend the continued session of her deposition. She also has offered no explanation for her failure to attend the Mandatory Settlement Conference. The court will issue an intefim order finding Berry in contempt, but will allow her to purge the contempt by complying with the court’s December 1, 2020 and February 3, 2021 orders by immediately servmg further responses to plaintiffs’ supplemental discovery requests and by attending her continued deposition on or before March 12, 2021. Berry shall also pay sanctions to plaintiffs in the amount of $1 ,000.00 for fees and costs incurred in connection with these proceedings. The Trial Confirmation Conference is ordered continued from March 8, 2021 to March 22, 2021, at 11:30 a.m., in this department. © 2021 Superior Court of the County of Santa Barbara 5 of5 3/8/2021, 9:36 AM PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA BA RBARA I am employed in [has Cnunty of Santa Barbara. State oFCalifomia. I am over the age of [8 years and not a party to this action. My business address is 21 E. Carrillo Street, Suite 240, Sama Barbarm California 93101 . On March 8. 2021, I served the foregoing documents described as NOTICE OF RL'LING 0N ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CUN'I‘EMPT OF COURT BY DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY, on the interested parties in this action: Address - Party Jessica Berry JESSE-'24 BERRY: in pro PW- H: Herr\-'"c.~i$jicaU3TrifiumaiLcum BY U.S. MAIL: This document was served by United States mail through the US Postal Service. 1enclosed the documsnt in a sealed envelope or package addressed tn the pcrsomfsj at the addressLE-s} above and placed the enveiopc(s) for coilection and mailing, {showing our ordinary business practices. I am readily famiiiar with [his firm’s practice of colicctlng and procesfiing correspondence for mailing. 0n the same day that correspondence is placed For collection and mailing, itis dcpositcd [nthe nrdinary course of business with the United Statcs Postal Service: at Santa Barbara, California, in a sealed envelope with postage qy paid. VIA EMAIL: served the documents above on all parties via electronic mail. to the M I addresses as listed on the attached service list, foHowing my employer‘s business practice For collection and processing ofmrrespondcncc. Such electronic transmission was reported as complete and without error on this date. El (State) I declare under penalty ofpcrjury under the laws of the State ofCaEifnrnia that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on March 3, 2021, at Santa Barbara, Califomia. w gb'fil‘lt A. Jaskc M 4 NOTICE. OF Rl ELING ON ORDIER 'I'r: SHOW CAUNl-L |-'OR CONTEMPI' 0F COURT BY Dt-ZE-‘ENDANT J1£53143». Ian-:kkv