Motion – OSC re Contempt Tentative Ruling: Plaintiffs Robin C. Rodarte, Trustee of the Cesareo DATA Trust; Peter LaBorde and Helen M. LaBorde, as Trustees of the Laborde Trust; and Marilyn Roman (“Plaintiffs”) move for an order to Show Cause Hearing Re: why Defendant Raul Romero (“Romero”) should not be held in contempt of this Court’s Order entered June 17, 2019 (the “Injunction”), and why Plaintiffs should not be awarded their costs and reasonable attorney fees in bringing this motion, by setting a date and time for hearing pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1212. The Motion is DENIED. “[T]he filing of a sufficient affidavit is a jurisdictional prerequisite to a contempt proceeding.” (Koehler v. Superior Court (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1153, 1169 (“Koehler”).) In indirect contempt proceedings based on a disobedience of a prior court order, a valid judgment must establish the following: (1) facts establishing the court’s jurisdiction (e.g., personal service or subpoena, validity
Hearing Date
November 09, 2021
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Motion – OSC re Contempt Tentative Ruling: Plaintiffs Robin C. Rodarte, Trustee of the Cesareo DATA Trust; Peter LaBorde and Helen M. LaBorde, as Trustees of the Laborde Trust; and Marilyn Roman (“Plaintiffs”) move for an order to Show Cause Hearing Re: why Defendant Raul Romero (“Romero”) should not be held in contempt of this Court’s Order entered June 17, 2019 (the “Injunction”), and why Plaintiffs should not be awarded their costs and reasonable attorney fees in bringing this motion, by setting a date and time for hearing pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1212. The Motion is DENIED. “[T]he filing of a sufficient affidavit is a jurisdictional prerequisite to a contempt proceeding.” (Koehler v. Superior Court (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1153, 1169 (“Koehler”).) In indirect contempt proceedings based on a disobedience of a prior court order, a valid judgment must establish the following: (1) facts establishing the court’s jurisdiction (e.g., personal service or subpoena, validity