Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/29/2019 at 02:51:52 (UTC).

LAWRENCE B ROBBINS M D VS DAVID L KAGEL

Case Summary

On 07/21/2016 LAWRENCE B ROBBINS M D filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against DAVID L KAGEL. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7822

  • Filing Date:

    07/21/2016

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

ROBBINS LAWRENCE B. M.D.

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 THROUGH 10

KAGEL DAVID L.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

RMO | RAHN MUNT O'GRADY LLP

 

Court Documents

Minute Order

3/2/2018: Minute Order

NOTICE OF CONTINUED TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE

3/13/2018: NOTICE OF CONTINUED TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE

Minute Order

5/4/2018: Minute Order

PLAINTIFF?S MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS

5/4/2018: PLAINTIFF?S MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS

NOTICE OF AND EX PARTE APPLICATION TO EXTEND TIME RE DEFAULT JUDGMENT; ETC

6/15/2018: NOTICE OF AND EX PARTE APPLICATION TO EXTEND TIME RE DEFAULT JUDGMENT; ETC

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT DAVID L. KAGEL

7/27/2018: ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT DAVID L. KAGEL

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

8/22/2018: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT DAVID L. KAGEL

8/22/2018: ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT DAVID L. KAGEL

COMPLAINT FOR: (1) BREACH OF CONTRACT; ETC

7/21/2016: COMPLAINT FOR: (1) BREACH OF CONTRACT; ETC

SUMMONS

8/15/2016: SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL

9/7/2016: PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE ORDER

12/13/2016: CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE ORDER

GENERAL DENIAL

2/3/2017: GENERAL DENIAL

PLAINTIFF LAWRENCE B. ROBBINS, M.D.'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $525.00; ETC.

7/31/2017: PLAINTIFF LAWRENCE B. ROBBINS, M.D.'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $525.00; ETC.

PLAINTIFF LAWRENCE B. ROBBINS, M.D.'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE ADMITTED, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $525.00; ETC.

7/31/2017: PLAINTIFF LAWRENCE B. ROBBINS, M.D.'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE ADMITTED, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $525.00; ETC.

NOTICE OF RULING AFTER HEARING ON PLAINTIFF'S: (1) MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE, ADMITTED AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; ETC.

9/26/2017: NOTICE OF RULING AFTER HEARING ON PLAINTIFF'S: (1) MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE, ADMITTED AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; ETC.

NOTICE OF FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE

10/3/2017: NOTICE OF FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE

AMENDED NOTICE OF TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE

11/7/2017: AMENDED NOTICE OF TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE

50 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/22/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 50; Status Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/22/2018
  • CASE SUMMARY IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/22/2018
  • REQUEST FOR DEFALT JUDGMENT (INCLUDING CASE SUMMARY AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/22/2018
  • Minute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/22/2018
  • NOTICE OF LODGMENT OF [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/22/2018
  • NOTICE OF LODGMENT OF REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL OF DOE DEFENDANTS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/22/2018
  • NOTICE OF LODGMENT OF [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR JUDGMENT BY COURT AFTER DEFAULT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/22/2018
  • Declaration; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/22/2018
  • Notice; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/22/2018
  • Miscellaneous-Other; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
104 More Docket Entries
  • 09/07/2016
  • Proof-Service/Summons

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/07/2016
  • Declaration re: Due Diligence; Filed by Lawrence B. M.D. Robbins (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/30/2016
  • NOTICE OF HEARING RE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/30/2016
  • Notice of Hearing; Filed by Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/24/2016
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/24/2016
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/15/2016
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/15/2016
  • Summons; Filed by Lawrence B. M.D. Robbins (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/21/2016
  • COMPLAINT FOR: (1) BREACH OF CONTRACT; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/21/2016
  • Complaint; Filed by Lawrence B. M.D. Robbins (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC627822    Hearing Date: March 22, 2021    Dept: 50

 

 

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

LAWRENCE B. ROBBINS, m.d.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

DAVID L. KAGEL, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.:

BC 627822

Hearing Date:

March 22, 2021

Hearing Time:

10:00 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:

PLAINTIFF LAWRENCE B. ROBBINS, M.D.’S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AGAINST DEFENDANT DAVID L. KAGEL AND FOR FINES AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,918

Background

On July 21, 2016, Plaintiff Lawrence B. Robbins, M.D. (“Plaintiff”) filed action against Defendant David L. Kagel (“Defendant”). The following discovery orders have been made against Defendant since the inception of this case:

  1. On September 20, 2017, Defendant was ordered to respond to certain discovery and pay $2,805 in sanctions.

  2. On May 4, 2018, terminating sanctions were granted against Defendant for failure to comply with the September 20, 2017 order, and Defendant’s answer was stricken.

  3. On October 16, 2020, Defendant was ordered to provide responses to post-judgment discovery requests and to pay $565 in sanctions.

Plaintiff contends that Defendant has failed to comply with the October 16, 2020 order. (Martinez Decl., ¶¶ 11-12.)

Plaintiff now moves for an order of contempt against Defendant. Plaintiff further moves for imposition of fines not to exceed $1,000 and for attorney fees in the amount of $5,918. The motion is unopposed.

Discussion

Contempt is any act, in or out of court, “Correct quotation (No suggestions)","CitationText":"In re Shortridge (1893) 99 Cal. 526, 532","ModifiedCitationText":"In re Shortridge (1893) 99 Cal. 526, 532","IsUseMyText":true,"IsMarkMyText":false,"IsEditMyText":false,"SuggestionForCitation":[],"IconIndicator":8,"UseCurrentIconIndicator":8,"UseCurrentMarkQuoteIconIndicator":0,"UseSuggestionIconIndicator":8,"IsEnabled":false,"IsUserConfirmed":false,"SuggestionCount":0,"IsManagedCite":true,"PinpointPageText":"Reassign pinpoint page","IsViewPinpointPage":false,"IsCorrect":true,"ShowPinPointPage":false,"SuggestionVisibility":false,"SuggestedDocUri":"which%20tends%20to%20impede,%20embarrass%20or%20obstruct%20the%20court%20in%20the%20discharge%20of%20its%20duties."}}}' docpart="6F9B468B6FE24CCF8EE6AF40FF77F8B1">which tends to impede, embarrass or obstruct the court in the discharge of its duties.” (\r\n PsychCase\r\n Full.CaseCitation\r\n 99 Cal. 526\r\n","ParentCiteID":null,"Processed":true,"Citation":{"current_string":"In re Shortridge (1893) 99 Cal. 526, 532","original_string":"In re Shortridge (1893) 99 Cal. 526, 532","error":null,"fullText":"In re Shortridge (1893) 99 Cal. 526, 532","refers_to_cite":null,"shortText":"99 Cal. 526","isParallel":false,"parallel":"","start":1504,"end":1544,"pattern":"Full.CaseCitation","readOrderIndex":1528,"index":1504,"citeType":1,"CiteShepSignal":2,"CiteShepSignalLink":"https://advance.lexis.com/api/shepards?context=1000516&id=urn:contentItem:7XWP-MP11-2NSD-R3SN-00000-00","story":"wdMainTextStory","PinPage":"532","name":"CITRUS_BOOKMARK2","foundBy":"PsychCase","FullTextParen":"In re Shortridge (1893) 99 Cal. 526","ParentheticalType":null,"IntermediateCite":false,"TOAHeading":null,"ts":{"$id":"1","End":918,"Offset":1373,"Start":0,"nref":0,"nind":0,"story":"wdMainTextStory","namedRanges":[{"$id":"2","Name":"Psych_Cite_1","Range":{"$id":"3","ts":{"$ref":"1"},"_Start":325,"_End":348,"_Text":"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.) Particular acts constituting contempt are enumerated by statute, and include “[d]isobedience of any lawful judgment, order, or process of the court.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1209.) “The power of the court to punish for contempt is indeed broad, but it is not unlimited. It is a drastic remedy, to be employed only when necessary to the proper and orderly conduct of judicial proceedings. A charge of contempt of court must be considered judicially as the question of guilt of any criminal offense must be, and a judge may not punish for contempt merely because he has suffered annoyance through the failure of some order he has made to receive instant observance.” (Chapman v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 261 Cal.App.2d 194, 201.) \r"},"foundBy":null,"pattern":null,"tabName":null},{"$id":"4","Name":"Psych_Cite_2","Range":{"$id":"5","ts":{"$ref":"1"},"_Start":131,"_End":171,"_Text":"Contempt is any act, in or out of court, “which tends to impede, embarrass or obstruct the court in the discharge of its duties.” (In re Shortridge (1893) 99 Cal. 526, 532.) Particular acts constituting contempt are enumerated by statute, and include “[d]isobedience of any lawful judgment, order, or process of the court.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1209.) “The power of the court to punish for contempt is indeed broad, but it is not unlimited. It is a drastic remedy, to be employed only when necessary to the proper and orderly conduct of judicial proceedings. A charge of contempt of court must be considered judicially as the question of guilt of any criminal offense must be, and a judge may not punish for contempt merely because he has suffered annoyance through the failure of some order he has made to receive instant observance.” (Chapman v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 261 Cal.App.2d 194, 201.) \r"},"foundBy":null,"pattern":null,"tabName":null},{"$id":"6","Name":"Psych_Cite_3","Range":{"$id":"7","ts":{"$ref":"1"},"_Start":836,"_End":914,"_Text":"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.) Particular acts constituting contempt are enumerated by statute, and include “[d]isobedience of any lawful judgment, order, or process of the court.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1209.) “The power of the court to punish for contempt is indeed broad, but it is not unlimited. It is a drastic remedy, to be employed only when necessary to the proper and orderly conduct of judicial proceedings. A charge of contempt of court must be considered judicially as the question of guilt of any criminal offense must be, and a judge may not punish for contempt merely because he has suffered annoyance through the failure of some order he has made to receive instant observance.” (Chapman v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 261 Cal.App.2d 194, 201.) \r"},"foundBy":null,"pattern":null,"tabName":null}],"Range":{"$id":"8","ts":{"$ref":"1"},"_Start":0,"_End":918,"_Text":"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.) Particular acts constituting contempt are enumerated by statute, and include “[d]isobedience of any lawful judgment, order, or process of the court.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1209.) “The power of the court to punish for contempt is indeed broad, but it is not unlimited. It is a drastic remedy, to be employed only when necessary to the proper and orderly conduct of judicial proceedings. A charge of contempt of court must be considered judicially as the question of guilt of any criminal offense must be, and a judge may not punish for contempt merely because he has suffered annoyance through the failure of some order he has made to receive instant observance.” (Chapman v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 261 Cal.App.2d 194, 201.) \r"}},"master":"___RESULTS_1","kernel_data":"In re Shortridge (1893) 99 Cal. 526, 532In re Shortridge (1893) 99 Cal. 526, 532In re Shortridge (1893) 99 Cal. 526, 532Full.CaseCitationciteCaseNameXYZZY v. KamalaCaseName.FirstPartyShortridgeCaseName.FirstParty._PatternParty.PartyCaseName.FirstParty.PartyShortridgeCaseName.InReIn reCourtParenthetical (1893) CourtParenthetical._PatternCourtParenthetical.CourtParentheticalCourtParenthetical.Date1893 CourtParenthetical.Date._PatternCourtParenthetical.Date.DateCourtParenthetical.Date.Year1893CourtParenthetical.Date.Year._PatternCourtParenthetical.Date.Year.YearCourtParenthetical.Date.Year.Year1893CourtParenthetical.ForbiddenComma._PatternForbiddenComma.ForbiddenCommaCourtParenthetical.Switch ( [ L (CourtParenthetical.Switch ( [ L.((CourtParenthetical.Switch ( [ L._PatternSwitch ( [ L.Switch ( [ LCourtParenthetical.Switch ) ] R) CourtParenthetical.Switch ) ] R.))CourtParenthetical.Switch ) ] R._PatternSwitch ) ] R.Switch ) ] RFirstPartyShortridge HAS_AUTHORITATIVE_DATAYESNY L Paren(NY R Paren)Reporter99 Cal. 526, 532Reporter.[[Reporter.]]Reporter.__PinPages532Reporter.__PinPages._PatternPinPages.PinPagesReporter.__PinPages.First532Reporter.__PinPages.First.__PageNumber532Reporter.__PinPages.First._PatternFirstPageInRange.FirstPageInRangeReporter._PatternReporter.ReporterReporter.FirstPage526Reporter.NameCal.Reporter.pagepageReporter.Reporter.pagepageReporter.RequiredComma, Reporter.RequiredComma._PatternRequiredComma.RequiredCommaReporter.RequiredComma.Comma,Reporter.Volume99RequiredComma, RequiredComma._PatternRequiredComma.RequiredCommasuprasupra, supra.,, supra._PatternShortCaseSupra.ShortCaseSuprasupra.suprasupramaster_name___RESULTS_1"},"IconIndicator":{"Id":1,"Title":"Cite is formatted correctly, its long and short form are automatically being updated, and it will be included in TOA.","IconType":1,"ImagePath":"~/Content/Images/CCF/RecognizedNoSuggestions.png","Description":"Number of cites recognized by system as valid."},"Display":"In re Shortridge (1893) 99 Cal. 526, 532","CitationRichText":"In re Shortridge (1893) 99 Cal. 526, 532","IconShepardSignal":{"Id":2,"Title":"Possible negative treatment - cases","IconType":0,"ImagePath":"/Content/Images/IconSignalPossibleNegative.gif","Description":null},"ShepardSignalLink":"https://advance.lexis.com/api/shepards?context=1000516&id=urn:contentItem:7XWP-MP11-2NSD-R3SN-00000-00","ShowShepardSignal":true,"ShowParentLink":false,"ParentCitation":null,"SuggestionsForCitation":[],"SuggestionsForCite":[],"SelectedSuggestion":null,"IsSuggestionEnabled":false,"UseCurrentIconIndicator":{"Id":1,"Title":"Cite is formatted correctly, its long and short form are automatically being updated, and it will be included in TOA.","IconType":1,"ImagePath":"~/Content/Images/CCF/RecognizedNoSuggestions.png","Description":"Number of cites recognized by system as valid."},"UseSuggestionIconIndicator":{"Id":1,"Title":"Cite is formatted correctly, its long and short form are automatically being updated, and it will be included in TOA.","IconType":1,"ImagePath":"~/Content/Images/CCF/RecognizedNoSuggestions.png","Description":"Number of cites recognized by system as valid."},"OriginalUseCurrentIconIndicator":{"Id":1,"Title":"Cite is formatted correctly, its long and short form are automatically being updated, and it will be included in TOA.","IconType":1,"ImagePath":"~/Content/Images/CCF/RecognizedNoSuggestions.png","Description":"Number of cites recognized by system as valid."},"CitationMarkupText":"In re Shortridge (1893) 99 Cal. 526, 532","ShortText":"99 Cal. 526","IsParentCorrect":true,"IsParentCorrectableConfirmed":false,"IsParentUnknownConfirmed":false,"IsParentCorrectable":false,"IsParentUnknown":false,"CitationOriginalText":"In re Shortridge (1893) 99 Cal. 526, 532","ModifiedCiteText":null,"MarkUp":null,"IsCheckCurrent":false,"PreviousCitationRetain":"In re Shortridge (1893) 99 Cal. 526, 532"},"CQ":"","TOA":"","html":"\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

In re Shortridge (1893)\r\n99 Cal. 526, 532

\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n"}" docpart="6F9B468B6FE24CCF8EE6AF40FF77F8B1">In re Shortridge (1893) 99 Cal. 526, 532In re Shortridge (1893) 99 Cal. 526, 532In re Shortridge (1893) 99 Cal. 526, 532Full.CaseCitationciteCaseNameXYZZY v. KamalaCaseName.FirstPartyShortridgeCaseName.FirstParty._PatternParty.PartyCaseName.FirstParty.PartyShortridgeCaseName.InReIn reCourtParenthetical (1893) CourtParenthetical._PatternCourtParenthetical.CourtParentheticalCourtParenthetical.Date1893 CourtParenthetical.Date._PatternCourtParenthetical.Date.DateCourtParenthetical.Date.Year1893CourtParenthetical.Date.Year._PatternCourtParenthetical.Date.Year.YearCourtParenthetical.Date.Year.Year1893CourtParenthetical.ForbiddenComma._PatternForbiddenComma.ForbiddenCommaCourtParenthetical.Switch ( [ L (CourtParenthetical.Switch ( [ L.((CourtParenthetical.Switch ( [ L._PatternSwitch ( [ L.Switch ( [ LCourtParenthetical.Switch ) ] R) CourtParenthetical.Switch ) ] R.))CourtParenthetical.Switch ) ] R._PatternSwitch ) ] R.Switch ) ] RFirstPartyShortridge HAS_AUTHORITATIVE_DATAYESNY L Paren(NY R Paren)Reporter99 Cal. 526, 532Reporter.[[Reporter.]]Reporter.__PinPages532Reporter.__PinPages._PatternPinPages.PinPagesReporter.__PinPages.First532Reporter.__PinPages.First.__PageNumber532Reporter.__PinPages.First._PatternFirstPageInRange.FirstPageInRangeReporter._PatternReporter.ReporterReporter.FirstPage526Reporter.NameCal.Reporter.pagepageReporter.Reporter.pagepageReporter.RequiredComma, Reporter.RequiredComma._PatternRequiredComma.RequiredCommaReporter.RequiredComma.Comma,Reporter.Volume99RequiredComma, RequiredComma._PatternRequiredComma.RequiredCommasuprasupra, supra.,, supra._PatternShortCaseSupra.ShortCaseSuprasupra.suprasupramaster_name___RESULTS_1","Markup":"In re Shortridge (1893) 99 Cal. 526, 532","Master":"___RESULTS_1","name":"CITRUS_BOOKMARK2","Original_string":"In re Shortridge (1893) 99 Cal. 526, 532","Page":null,"Parallel":"","Pattern":"Full.CaseCitation","PinPage":"532","ReadOrderIndex":1504,"Refers_To":null,"ShortText":"99 Cal. 526","Start":1504,"Story":"wdMainTextStory"},"TOA":"","html":"\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n

In\r\nre Shortridge (1893)\r\n99 Cal. 526, 532

\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n"}" docpart="6F9B468B6FE24CCF8EE6AF40FF77F8B1">In re Shortridge (1893) 99 Cal. 526, 532.) Particular acts constituting contempt are enumerated by statute, and include “Correct quotation (No suggestions)","CitationText":"Code Civ. Proc., § 1209","ModifiedCitationText":"Code Civ. Proc., § 1209","IsUseMyText":true,"IsMarkMyText":false,"IsEditMyText":false,"SuggestionForCitation":[],"IconIndicator":8,"UseCurrentIconIndicator":8,"UseCurrentMarkQuoteIconIndicator":0,"UseSuggestionIconIndicator":8,"IsEnabled":false,"IsUserConfirmed":false,"SuggestionCount":0,"IsManagedCite":true,"PinpointPageText":"Reassign pinpoint page","IsViewPinpointPage":false,"IsCorrect":true,"ShowPinPointPage":false,"SuggestionVisibility":false,"SuggestedDocUri":"[d]isobedience%c2%a0of%20any%20lawful%20judgment,%20order,%20or%20process%20of%20the%20court."}}}' docpart="6F9B468B6FE24CCF8EE6AF40FF77F8B1">[d]isobedience of any lawful judgment, order, or process of the court.” (\r\n PsychStateSubjectCode\r\n Full.StateStatuteCite\r\n Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1209\r\n","ParentCiteID":null,"Processed":true,"Citation":{"current_string":"Code Civ. Proc., § 1209","original_string":"Code Civ. Proc., § 1209","error":null,"fullText":"Code Civ. Proc., § 1209","refers_to_cite":null,"shortText":"Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1209","isParallel":false,"parallel":null,"start":1698,"end":1721,"pattern":"Full.StateStatuteCite","readOrderIndex":1698,"index":1698,"citeType":1,"CiteShepSignal":0,"CiteShepSignalLink":null,"story":"wdMainTextStory","PinPage":null,"name":"CITRUS_BOOKMARK1","foundBy":"PsychStateSubjectCode","FullTextParen":"Code Civ. Proc., § 1209","ParentheticalType":null,"IntermediateCite":false,"TOAHeading":null,"ts":{"$ref":"1"},"master":"___RESULTS_2","kernel_data":"Code Civ. Proc., § 1209Code Civ. Proc., § 1209Code Civ. Proc., § 1209Full.StateStatuteCitecite__AfterStatutoryCite__AfterStatutoryCite._PatternAfterStatutoryCite.AfterStatutoryCite__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite()__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.((__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.))__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite._PatternStatutoryCodeEditionCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.StatutoryCodeEdition__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.StatutoryCodeEdition._PatternStatutoryCodeEdition.StatutoryCodeEdition__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.StatutoryCodeEdition.PublisherDeering __AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.StatutoryCodeEdition.Year__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.StatutoryCodeEdition.Year._PatternYear.Year__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.StatutoryCodeEdition.Year.YearJURISDICTIONYESPUBLISHERDeeringStateStatuteCode Civ. Proc., §1209 StateStatute.,,StateStatute.__SectionOrSections §1209 StateStatute.__SectionOrSections._PatternX1.X1StateStatute.__SectionOrSections.RequiredSectionSymbol §StateStatute.__SectionOrSections.RequiredSectionSymbol._PatternRequiredSectionSymbol.RequiredSectionSymbolStateStatute.__SectionOrSections.RequiredSectionSymbol.SectionSymbol§StateStatute.__SectionOrSections.X11209StateStatute._PatternStateStatutes.StateStatutesStateStatute.CalCal.StateStatute.CaliforniaCodeSubjectCiv. Proc. CodeStateStatute.Sectionsectionmaster_name___RESULTS_2"},"IconIndicator":{"Id":1,"Title":"Cite is formatted correctly, its long and short form are automatically being updated, and it will be included in TOA.","IconType":1,"ImagePath":"~/Content/Images/CCF/RecognizedNoSuggestions.png","Description":"Number of cites recognized by system as valid."},"Display":"Code Civ. Proc., § 1209","CitationRichText":"Code Civ. Proc., § 1209","IconShepardSignal":{"Id":-1,"Title":"No Analysis","IconType":0,"ImagePath":"/Content/Images/blank.jpg","Description":null},"ShepardSignalLink":null,"ShowShepardSignal":false,"ShowParentLink":false,"ParentCitation":null,"SuggestionsForCitation":[],"SuggestionsForCite":[],"SelectedSuggestion":null,"IsSuggestionEnabled":false,"UseCurrentIconIndicator":{"Id":1,"Title":"Cite is formatted correctly, its long and short form are automatically being updated, and it will be included in TOA.","IconType":1,"ImagePath":"~/Content/Images/CCF/RecognizedNoSuggestions.png","Description":"Number of cites recognized by system as valid."},"UseSuggestionIconIndicator":{"Id":1,"Title":"Cite is formatted correctly, its long and short form are automatically being updated, and it will be included in TOA.","IconType":1,"ImagePath":"~/Content/Images/CCF/RecognizedNoSuggestions.png","Description":"Number of cites recognized by system as valid."},"OriginalUseCurrentIconIndicator":{"Id":1,"Title":"Cite is formatted correctly, its long and short form are automatically being updated, and it will be included in TOA.","IconType":1,"ImagePath":"~/Content/Images/CCF/RecognizedNoSuggestions.png","Description":"Number of cites recognized by system as valid."},"CitationMarkupText":"Code Civ. Proc., § 1209","ShortText":"Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1209","IsParentCorrect":true,"IsParentCorrectableConfirmed":false,"IsParentUnknownConfirmed":false,"IsParentCorrectable":false,"IsParentUnknown":false,"CitationOriginalText":"Code Civ. Proc., § 1209","ModifiedCiteText":null,"MarkUp":null,"IsCheckCurrent":false,"PreviousCitationRetain":"Code Civ. Proc., § 1209"},"CQ":"","TOA":"","html":"\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n

Code Civ. Proc., § 1209

\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n"}" docpart="6F9B468B6FE24CCF8EE6AF40FF77F8B1">Code Civ. Proc., § 1209Code Civ. Proc., § 1209Code Civ. Proc., § 1209Full.StateStatuteCitecite__AfterStatutoryCite__AfterStatutoryCite._PatternAfterStatutoryCite.AfterStatutoryCite__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite()__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.((__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.))__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite._PatternStatutoryCodeEditionCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.StatutoryCodeEdition__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.StatutoryCodeEdition._PatternStatutoryCodeEdition.StatutoryCodeEdition__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.StatutoryCodeEdition.PublisherDeering __AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.StatutoryCodeEdition.Year__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.StatutoryCodeEdition.Year._PatternYear.Year__AfterStatutoryCite.StatutoryCodeEditionCite.StatutoryCodeEdition.Year.YearJURISDICTIONYESPUBLISHERDeeringStateStatuteCode Civ. Proc., §1209 StateStatute.,,StateStatute.__SectionOrSections §1209 StateStatute.__SectionOrSections._PatternX1.X1StateStatute.__SectionOrSections.RequiredSectionSymbol §StateStatute.__SectionOrSections.RequiredSectionSymbol._PatternRequiredSectionSymbol.RequiredSectionSymbolStateStatute.__SectionOrSections.RequiredSectionSymbol.SectionSymbol§StateStatute.__SectionOrSections.X11209StateStatute._PatternStateStatutes.StateStatutesStateStatute.CalCal.StateStatute.CaliforniaCodeSubjectCiv. Proc. CodeStateStatute.Sectionsectionmaster_name___RESULTS_2","Markup":"Code Civ. Proc., § 1209","Master":"___RESULTS_2","name":"CITRUS_BOOKMARK1","Original_string":"Code Civ. Proc., § 1209","Page":null,"Parallel":"","Pattern":"Full.StateStatuteCite","PinPage":"","ReadOrderIndex":1698,"Refers_To":null,"ShortText":"Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §1209","Start":1698,"Story":"wdMainTextStory"},"TOA":"","html":"\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n

Code\r\nCiv. Proc., § 1209

\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n"}" docpart="6F9B468B6FE24CCF8EE6AF40FF77F8B1">Code Civ. Proc., § 1209.) “The power of the court to punish for contempt is indeed broad , but it is not unlimited . It is a drastic remedy , to be employed only when necessary to the proper and orderly conduct of judicial proceedings . A charge of contempt of court must be considered judicially as the question of guilt of any criminal offense must be , and a judge may not punish for contempt merely because he has suffered annoyance through the failure of some order he has made to receive instant observance . ","QuotationType":"SentenceQuote","EditedQuotationText":"The power of the court to punish for contempt is indeed broad, but it is not unlimited. It is a drastic remedy, to be employed only when necessary to the proper and orderly conduct of judicial proceedings. A charge of contempt of court must be considered judicially as the question of guilt of any criminal offense must be, and a judge may not punish for contempt merely because he has suffered annoyance through the failure of some order he has made to receive instant observance.”","MarkedQuotationText":"[The] power [of the court] to punish for contempt is [indeed] broad, but [it is] not unlimited[.I]t is [a] drastic remedy [, ] to be employed only when necessary to [the] proper and orderly conduct of judicial proceedings. [A charg]e [of contempt of court must be considere]d [judicially as the question of guilt of any criminal offense must be, and a judge may not punish for contempt merely because he has suffered annoyance through the failure of some order he] has [made] to [receive instant observance. . . . ’","CCMarkedQuotationText":" [The] power [ of the court ] to punish for contempt is [ indeed ] broad , but [ it is ] not unlimited [. I]t is [ a ] drastic remedy [ , ] to be employed only when necessary to [ the ] proper and orderly conduct of judicial proceedings . [A charg]e [of contempt of court must be considere]d [judicially as the question of guilt of any criminal offense must be , and a judge may not punish for contempt merely because he has suffered annoyance through the failure of some order he] has [made] to [receive instant observance .] . . . ","SuggestionForQuote":"Court’s power to punish for contempt is broad, but not unlimited; it is drastic remedy to be employed only when necessary to proper and orderly conduct of judicial proceedings. In re Hagan (Cal. App. 2d Dist. Feb. 11, 1964), 224 Cal. App. 2d 590, 36 Cal. Rptr. 828, 1964 Cal. App. LEXIS 1507. A court has inherent power to exercise reasonable control over all","CCSuggestionForQuote":" Court’s power to punish for contempt is broad , but not unlimited ; it is drastic remedy to be employed only when necessary to proper and orderly conduct of judicial proceedings . In re Hagan ( Cal . App . 2d Dist . Feb . 11 , 1964 ) , 224 Cal . App . 2d 590 , 36 Cal . Rptr . 828 , 1964 Cal . App . LEXIS 1507 . A court has inherent power to exercise reasonable control over","CitationText":"Code Civ. Proc., § 1209","ModifiedCitationText":"Code Civ. Proc., § 1209","IsUseMyText":true,"IsMarkMyText":false,"IsEditMyText":false,"SuggestionForCitation":[],"IconIndicator":9,"UseCurrentIconIndicator":10,"UseCurrentMarkQuoteIconIndicator":8,"UseSuggestionIconIndicator":8,"IsEnabled":true,"IsUserConfirmed":false,"SuggestionCount":0,"IsManagedCite":true,"PinpointPageText":"Reassign pinpoint page","IsViewPinpointPage":false,"IsCorrect":false,"ShowPinPointPage":false,"SuggestionVisibility":true,"SuggestedDocUri":"The%20power%20of%20the%20court%20to%20punish%20for%20contempt%20is%20indeed%20broad,%20but%20it%20is%20not%20unlimited.%20It%20is%20a%20drastic%20remedy,%20to%20be%20employed%20only%20when%20necessary%20to%20the%20proper%20and%20orderly%20conduct%20of%20judicial%20proceedings.%20A%20charge%20of%20contempt%20of%20court%20must%20be%20considered%20judicially%20as%20the%20question%20of%20guilt%20of%20any%20criminal%20offense%20must%20be,%20and%20a%20judge%20may%20not%20punish%20for%20contempt%20merely%20because%20he%20has%20suffered%20annoyance%20through%20the%20failure%20of%20some%20order%20he%20has%20made%20to%20receive%20instant%20observance.%e2%80%9d"}}}' docpart="6F9B468B6FE24CCF8EE6AF40FF77F8B1">The power of the court to punish for contempt is indeed broad, but it is not unlimited. It is a drastic remedy, to be employed only when necessary to the proper and orderly conduct of judicial proceedings. A charge of contempt of court must be considered judicially as the question of guilt of any criminal offense must be, and a judge may not punish for contempt merely because he has suffered annoyance through the failure of some order he has made to receive instant observance.” (\r\n PsychCase\r\n Full.CaseCitation\r\n 261 Cal. App. 2d 194\r\n","ParentCiteID":null,"Processed":true,"Citation":{"current_string":"Chapman v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 261 Cal.App.2d 194, 201","original_string":"Chapman v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 261 Cal.App.2d 194, 201","error":null,"fullText":"Chapman v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 261 Cal.App.2d 194, 201","refers_to_cite":null,"shortText":"261 Cal. App. 2d 194","isParallel":false,"parallel":"","start":2209,"end":2287,"pattern":"Full.CaseCitation","readOrderIndex":2264,"index":2209,"citeType":1,"CiteShepSignal":7,"CiteShepSignalLink":"https://advance.lexis.com/api/shepards?context=1000516&id=urn:contentItem:7XW4-F4N1-2NSF-C23D-00000-00","story":"wdMainTextStory","PinPage":"201","name":"CITRUS_BOOKMARK3","foundBy":"PsychCase","FullTextParen":"Chapman v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 261 Cal.App.2d 194","ParentheticalType":null,"IntermediateCite":false,"TOAHeading":null,"ts":{"$ref":"1"},"master":"___RESULTS_3","kernel_data":"Chapman v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 261 Cal.App.2d 194, 201Chapman v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 261 Cal.App.2d 194, 201Chapman v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 261 Cal.App.2d 194, 201Full.CaseCitationciteCaseNameXYZZY v. KamalaCaseName.FirstPartyChapmanCaseName.FirstParty._PatternParty.PartyCaseName.FirstParty.PartyChapmanCaseName.SecondPartySuperior Court of Los Angeles CountyCaseName.SecondParty._PatternParty.PartyCaseName.SecondParty.PartySuperior Court of Los Angeles CountyCaseName.vv.CourtParenthetical (1968) CourtParenthetical._PatternCourtParenthetical.CourtParentheticalCourtParenthetical.Date1968 CourtParenthetical.Date._PatternCourtParenthetical.Date.DateCourtParenthetical.Date.Year1968CourtParenthetical.Date.Year._PatternCourtParenthetical.Date.Year.YearCourtParenthetical.Date.Year.Year1968CourtParenthetical.ForbiddenComma._PatternForbiddenComma.ForbiddenCommaCourtParenthetical.Switch ( [ L (CourtParenthetical.Switch ( [ L.((CourtParenthetical.Switch ( [ L._PatternSwitch ( [ L.Switch ( [ LCourtParenthetical.Switch ) ] R) CourtParenthetical.Switch ) ] R.))CourtParenthetical.Switch ) ] R._PatternSwitch ) ] R.Switch ) ] RFirstPartyChapman HAS_AUTHORITATIVE_DATAYESNY L Paren(NY R Paren)Reporter261 Cal.App.2d 194, 201Reporter.[[Reporter.]]Reporter.__PinPages201Reporter.__PinPages._PatternPinPages.PinPagesReporter.__PinPages.First201Reporter.__PinPages.First.__PageNumber201Reporter.__PinPages.First._PatternFirstPageInRange.FirstPageInRangeReporter._PatternReporter.ReporterReporter.FirstPage194Reporter.NameCal. App. 2dReporter.pagepageReporter.Reporter.pagepageReporter.RequiredComma, Reporter.RequiredComma._PatternRequiredComma.RequiredCommaReporter.RequiredComma.Comma,Reporter.Volume261RequiredComma, RequiredComma._PatternRequiredComma.RequiredCommaSecondPartySuperior Court of Los Angeles County suprasupra, supra.,, supra._PatternShortCaseSupra.ShortCaseSuprasupra.suprasupramaster_name___RESULTS_3"},"IconIndicator":{"Id":1,"Title":"Cite is formatted correctly, its long and short form are automatically being updated, and it will be included in TOA.","IconType":1,"ImagePath":"~/Content/Images/CCF/RecognizedNoSuggestions.png","Description":"Number of cites recognized by system as valid."},"Display":"Chapman v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 261 Cal.App.2d 194, 201","CitationRichText":"Chapman v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 261 Cal.App.2d 194, 201","IconShepardSignal":{"Id":7,"Title":"Analysis available - cases","IconType":0,"ImagePath":"/Content/Images/IconSignalAnalysisAvailable.gif","Description":null},"ShepardSignalLink":"https://advance.lexis.com/api/shepards?context=1000516&id=urn:contentItem:7XW4-F4N1-2NSF-C23D-00000-00","ShowShepardSignal":true,"ShowParentLink":false,"ParentCitation":null,"SuggestionsForCitation":[],"SuggestionsForCite":[],"SelectedSuggestion":null,"IsSuggestionEnabled":false,"UseCurrentIconIndicator":{"Id":1,"Title":"Cite is formatted correctly, its long and short form are automatically being updated, and it will be included in TOA.","IconType":1,"ImagePath":"~/Content/Images/CCF/RecognizedNoSuggestions.png","Description":"Number of cites recognized by system as valid."},"UseSuggestionIconIndicator":{"Id":1,"Title":"Cite is formatted correctly, its long and short form are automatically being updated, and it will be included in TOA.","IconType":1,"ImagePath":"~/Content/Images/CCF/RecognizedNoSuggestions.png","Description":"Number of cites recognized by system as valid."},"OriginalUseCurrentIconIndicator":{"Id":1,"Title":"Cite is formatted correctly, its long and short form are automatically being updated, and it will be included in TOA.","IconType":1,"ImagePath":"~/Content/Images/CCF/RecognizedNoSuggestions.png","Description":"Number of cites recognized by system as valid."},"CitationMarkupText":"Chapman v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 261 Cal.App.2d 194, 201","ShortText":"261 Cal. App. 2d 194","IsParentCorrect":true,"IsParentCorrectableConfirmed":false,"IsParentUnknownConfirmed":false,"IsParentCorrectable":false,"IsParentUnknown":false,"CitationOriginalText":"Chapman v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 261 Cal.App.2d 194, 201","ModifiedCiteText":null,"MarkUp":null,"IsCheckCurrent":false,"PreviousCitationRetain":"Chapman v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 261 Cal.App.2d 194, 201"},"CQ":"","TOA":"","html":"\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n

Chapman v. Superior Court of Los Angeles\r\nCounty (1968) 261 Cal.App.2d 194, 201

\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n"}" docpart="6F9B468B6FE24CCF8EE6AF40FF77F8B1">Chapman v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 261 Cal.App.2d 194, 201Chapman v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 261 Cal.App.2d 194, 201Chapman v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 261 Cal.App.2d 194, 201Full.CaseCitationciteCaseNameXYZZY v. KamalaCaseName.FirstPartyChapmanCaseName.FirstParty._PatternParty.PartyCaseName.FirstParty.PartyChapmanCaseName.SecondPartySuperior Court of Los Angeles CountyCaseName.SecondParty._PatternParty.PartyCaseName.SecondParty.PartySuperior Court of Los Angeles CountyCaseName.vv.CourtParenthetical (1968) CourtParenthetical._PatternCourtParenthetical.CourtParentheticalCourtParenthetical.Date1968 CourtParenthetical.Date._PatternCourtParenthetical.Date.DateCourtParenthetical.Date.Year1968CourtParenthetical.Date.Year._PatternCourtParenthetical.Date.Year.YearCourtParenthetical.Date.Year.Year1968CourtParenthetical.ForbiddenComma._PatternForbiddenComma.ForbiddenCommaCourtParenthetical.Switch ( [ L (CourtParenthetical.Switch ( [ L.((CourtParenthetical.Switch ( [ L._PatternSwitch ( [ L.Switch ( [ LCourtParenthetical.Switch ) ] R) CourtParenthetical.Switch ) ] R.))CourtParenthetical.Switch ) ] R._PatternSwitch ) ] R.Switch ) ] RFirstPartyChapman HAS_AUTHORITATIVE_DATAYESNY L Paren(NY R Paren)Reporter261 Cal.App.2d 194, 201Reporter.[[Reporter.]]Reporter.__PinPages201Reporter.__PinPages._PatternPinPages.PinPagesReporter.__PinPages.First201Reporter.__PinPages.First.__PageNumber201Reporter.__PinPages.First._PatternFirstPageInRange.FirstPageInRangeReporter._PatternReporter.ReporterReporter.FirstPage194Reporter.NameCal. App. 2dReporter.pagepageReporter.Reporter.pagepageReporter.RequiredComma, Reporter.RequiredComma._PatternRequiredComma.RequiredCommaReporter.RequiredComma.Comma,Reporter.Volume261RequiredComma, RequiredComma._PatternRequiredComma.RequiredCommaSecondPartySuperior Court of Los Angeles County suprasupra, supra.,, supra._PatternShortCaseSupra.ShortCaseSuprasupra.suprasupramaster_name___RESULTS_3","Markup":"Chapman v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 261 Cal.App.2d 194, 201","Master":"___RESULTS_3","name":"CITRUS_BOOKMARK3","Original_string":"Chapman v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 261 Cal.App.2d 194, 201","Page":null,"Parallel":"","Pattern":"Full.CaseCitation","PinPage":"201","ReadOrderIndex":2209,"Refers_To":null,"ShortText":"261 Cal. App. 2d 194","Start":2209,"Story":"wdMainTextStory"},"TOA":"","html":"\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n

Chapman\r\nv. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 261 Cal.App.2d 194, 201

\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n"}" docpart="6F9B468B6FE24CCF8EE6AF40FF77F8B1">Chapman v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 261 Cal.App.2d 194, 201.) 

“cause . . . . After notice to the opposing party’s lawyer , the court ( if satisfied with the sufficiency of the affidavit ) must sign an order to show cause re contempt in which the date and time for a hearing are set forth . . . . [ ) ] The order to show cause acts as a summons to appear in court on a certain day and , as its name suggests , to show cause why a certain thing should not be done . . . . [ ) ] Unless the citee has concealed himself from the court , he must be personally served with the affidavit and the order to show cause ; otherwise , the court lacks jurisdiction to proceed .","SuggestionForQuote":"A contempt proceeding is commenced by the filing of an affidavit and a request for an order to show cause. (§ 1211, subds. (a), (b).) After notice to the opposing party's lawyer, the court (if satisfied with the sufficiency of the affidavit) must sign an order to show cause re contempt in which the date and time for a hearing are set forth. (§ 1212; Arthur v. Superior Court (1965) 62 Cal. 2d 404, 408 [42 Cal. Rptr. 441, 398 P.2d 777] [ ['an order to show cause must be issued']; Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 1999) P 9:715, p. 9(II)-47.) The order to show cause acts as a summons to appear in court on a certain day and, as its name suggests, to show cause why a certain thing should not be done. (Morelli v. Superior Court (1968) 262 Cal. App. 2d 262, 269 [68 Cal. Rptr. 572].) Unless the citee has concealed himself from the court, he must be personally served with the affidavit and the order to show cause; otherwise, the court lacks jurisdiction to proceed.","CCSuggestionForQuote":" A contempt proceeding is commenced by the filing of an affidavit and a request for an order to show cause . 1211 subds a b . After notice to the opposing party's lawyer , the court ( if satisfied with the sufficiency of the affidavit ) must sign an order to show cause re contempt in which the date and time for a hearing are set forth 1212 Arthur v Superior Court 1965 62 Cal 2d 404 408 42 Cal Rptr 441 398 P 2d 777 an order to show cause must be issued Weil Brown Cal Practice Guide Civil Procedure Before Trial The Rutter Group 1999 P 9 715 p . 9 II 47 ) The order to show cause acts as a summons to appear in court on a certain day and , as its name suggests , to show cause why a certain thing should not be done Morelli v Superior Court 1968 262 Cal App 2d 262 269 68 Cal Rptr . 572 ) Unless the citee has concealed himself from the court , he must be personally served with the affidavit and the order to show cause ; otherwise , the court lacks jurisdiction to proceed .","CitationText":"Cedars-Sinai Imaging Med. Grp. v. Superior Court (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1281, 1286-1287 (internal citations omitted)","ModifiedCitationText":"Cedars-Sinai Imaging Med. Grp. v. Superior Court (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1281, 1286-1287 (internal citations omitted)","IsUseMyText":true,"IsMarkMyText":false,"IsEditMyText":false,"SuggestionForCitation":[],"IconIndicator":9,"UseCurrentIconIndicator":10,"UseCurrentMarkQuoteIconIndicator":8,"UseSuggestionIconIndicator":8,"IsEnabled":true,"IsUserConfirmed":false,"SuggestionCount":0,"IsManagedCite":false,"PinpointPageText":"View suggested pinpoint page","IsViewPinpointPage":true,"IsCorrect":false,"ShowPinPointPage":false,"SuggestionVisibility":true,"SuggestedDocUri":"A%20contempt%20proceeding%20is%20commenced%20by%20the%20filing%20of%20an%20affidavit%20and%20a%20request%20for%20an%20order%20to%20show%20cause.%20.%20.%20.%20After%20notice%20to%20the%20opposing%20party's%20lawyer,%20the%20court%20(if%20satisfied%20with%20the%20sufficiency%20of%20the%20affidavit)%20must%20sign%20an%20order%20to%20show%20cause%20re%20contempt%20in%20which%20the%20date%20and%20time%20for%20a%20hearing%20are%20set%20forth.%20The%20order%20to%20show%20cause%20acts%20as%20a%20summons%20to%20appear%20in%20court%20on%20a%20certain%20day%20and,%20as%20its%20name%20suggests,%20to%20show%20cause%20why%20a%20certain%20thing%20should%20not%20be%20done.%20Unless%20the%c2%a0citee%c2%a0has%20concealed%20himself%20from%20the%20court,%20he%20must%20be%20personally%20served%20with%20the%20affidavit%20and%20the%20order%20to%20show%20cause;%20otherwise,%20the%20court%20lacks%20jurisdiction%20to%20proceed."}}}" docpart="6F9B468B6FE24CCF8EE6AF40FF77F8B1">A contempt proceeding is commenced by the filing of an affidavit and a request for an order to show cause. [Citation.] After notice to the opposing party's lawyer, the court (if satisfied with the sufficiency of the affidavit) must sign an order to show cause re contempt in which the date and time for a hearing are set forth. [Citations.] The order to show cause acts as a summons to appear in court on a certain day and, as its name suggests, to show cause why a certain thing should not be done. [Citation.] Unless the citee has concealed himself from the court, he must be personally served with the affidavit and the order to show cause; otherwise, the court lacks jurisdiction to proceed.” (Cedars-Sinai Imaging Med. Grp. v. Superior Court (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1281, 1286-1287 (internal citations omitted)Cedars-Sinai Imaging Medical Group v. Superior Court (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1281, 1286-1287 [internal citations omitted]Cedars-Sinai Imaging Medical Group v. Superior Court (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1281, 1286-1287 [internal citations omitted]Full.CaseCitationciteCaseNameXYZZY v. KamalaCaseName.FirstPartyCedars-Sinai Imaging Medical GroupCaseName.FirstParty._PatternParty.PartyCaseName.FirstParty.PartyCedars-Sinai Imaging Medical GroupCaseName.SecondPartySuperior CourtCaseName.SecondParty._PatternParty.PartyCaseName.SecondParty.PartySuperior CourtCaseName.vv.CourtParenthetical (2000) CourtParenthetical._PatternCourtParenthetical.CourtParentheticalCourtParenthetical.Date2000 CourtParenthetical.Date._PatternCourtParenthetical.Date.DateCourtParenthetical.Date.Year2000CourtParenthetical.Date.Year._PatternCourtParenthetical.Date.Year.YearCourtParenthetical.Date.Year.Year2000CourtParenthetical.ForbiddenComma._PatternForbiddenComma.ForbiddenCommaCourtParenthetical.Switch ( [ L (CourtParenthetical.Switch ( [ L.((CourtParenthetical.Switch ( [ L._PatternSwitch ( [ L.Switch ( [ LCourtParenthetical.Switch ) ] R) CourtParenthetical.Switch ) ] R.))CourtParenthetical.Switch ) ] R._PatternSwitch ) ] R.Switch ) ] RFirstPartyCedars-Sinai Imaging Medical Group HAS_AUTHORITATIVE_DATAYESNY L Paren(NY R Paren)Parenthetical [internal citations omitted] Parenthetical.([ [Parenthetical.([.((Parenthetical.([._Pattern([.([Parenthetical.])] Parenthetical.]).))Parenthetical.])._Pattern]).])Parenthetical.__OtherReasonableExplanationinternal citations omittedParenthetical._PatternParenthetical.ParentheticalReporter83 Cal.App.4th 1281, 1286-1287 Reporter.[[Reporter.]]Reporter.__PinPages1286-1287 Reporter.__PinPages._PatternPinPages.PinPagesReporter.__PinPages.First1286Reporter.__PinPages.First.__PageNumber1286Reporter.__PinPages.First._PatternFirstPageInRange.FirstPageInRangeReporter.__PinPages.Last1287 Reporter.__PinPages.Last._PatternLastPageNumber.LastPageNumberReporter.__PinPages.Last.PageNumber87Reporter.__PinPages.Last.PageNumber_Full1287Reporter.__PinPages.RangeDash-Reporter._PatternReporter.ReporterReporter.FirstPage1281Reporter.NameCal. App. 4thReporter.pagepagesReporter.Reporter.pagepagesReporter.RequiredComma, Reporter.RequiredComma._PatternRequiredComma.RequiredCommaReporter.RequiredComma.Comma,Reporter.Volume83RequiredComma, RequiredComma._PatternRequiredComma.RequiredCommaSecondPartySuperior Court suprasupra, supra.,, supra._PatternShortCaseSupra.ShortCaseSuprasupra.suprasupramaster_name___RESULTS_4","Markup":"Cedars-Sinai Imaging Medical Group v. Superior Court (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1281, 1286-1287 [internal citations omitted]","Master":"___RESULTS_4","name":"Psych_Cite_6","Original_string":"Cedars-Sinai Imaging Med. Grp. v. Superior Court (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1281, 1286-1287 (internal citations omitted)","Page":null,"Parallel":"","Pattern":"Full.CaseCitation","PinPage":"1286","ReadOrderIndex":3015,"Refers_To":null,"ShortText":"83 Cal. App. 4th 1281","Start":2959,"Story":"wdMainTextStory"},"TOA":"","html":"\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Cedars-Sinai Imaging Med. Grp. v. Superior\r\nCourt (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1281,\r\n1286-1287 (internal citations omitted)

\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n"}" docpart="6F9B468B6FE24CCF8EE6AF40FF77F8B1">Cedars-Sinai Imaging Med. Grp. v. Superior Court (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1281, 1286-1287 (emphasis in original).) 

“Correct quotation (No suggestions)","CitationText":"In re Ivey (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 793, 798","ModifiedCitationText":"In re Ivey (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 793, 798","IsUseMyText":true,"IsMarkMyText":false,"IsEditMyText":false,"SuggestionForCitation":[],"IconIndicator":8,"UseCurrentIconIndicator":8,"UseCurrentMarkQuoteIconIndicator":0,"UseSuggestionIconIndicator":8,"IsEnabled":false,"IsUserConfirmed":false,"SuggestionCount":0,"IsManagedCite":true,"PinpointPageText":"Reassign pinpoint page","IsViewPinpointPage":false,"IsCorrect":true,"ShowPinPointPage":false,"SuggestionVisibility":false,"SuggestedDocUri":"As%20a%20general%20rule,%20the%20elements%20of%20contempt%20include%20(1)%20a%20valid%20order,%20(2)%20knowledge%20of%20the%20order,%20(3)%20ability%20to%20comply%20with%20the%20order,%20and%20(4)%20willful%20failure%20to%20comply%20with%20the%20order."}}}' docpart="6F9B468B6FE24CCF8EE6AF40FF77F8B1">As a general rule, the elements of contempt include (1) a valid order, (2) knowledge of the order, (3) ability to comply with the order, and (4) willful failure to comply with the order.” (\r\n PsychCase\r\n Full.CaseCitation\r\n 85 Cal. App. 4th 793\r\n","ParentCiteID":null,"Processed":true,"Citation":{"current_string":"In re Ivey (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 793, 798","original_string":"In re Ivey (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 793, 798","error":null,"fullText":"In re Ivey (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 793, 798","refers_to_cite":null,"shortText":"85 Cal. App. 4th 793","isParallel":false,"parallel":"","start":3269,"end":3310,"pattern":"Full.CaseCitation","readOrderIndex":3287,"index":3269,"citeType":1,"CiteShepSignal":1,"CiteShepSignalLink":"https://advance.lexis.com/api/shepards?context=1000516&id=urn:contentItem:7XX0-B8P1-2NSD-K34V-00000-00","story":"wdMainTextStory","PinPage":"798","name":"CITRUS_BOOKMARK5","foundBy":"PsychCase","FullTextParen":"In re Ivey (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 793","ParentheticalType":null,"IntermediateCite":false,"TOAHeading":null,"ts":{"$id":"13","End":1402,"Offset":3079,"Start":0,"nref":0,"nind":0,"story":"wdMainTextStory","namedRanges":[{"$id":"14","Name":"Psych_Cite_5","Range":{"$id":"15","ts":{"$ref":"13"},"_Start":190,"_End":231,"_Text":"“As a general rule, the elements of contempt include (1) a valid order, (2) knowledge of the order, (3) ability to comply with the order, and (4) willful failure to comply with the order.” (In re Ivey (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 793, 798.) \rHere, the Court finds that Plaintiff has submitted sufficient evidence, by way of counsel’s declaration, to support the issuance of an order to show cause why Defendant should not be held in contempt for his disobedience of the October 16, 2020 order. Particularly in light of the fact that Defendant has failed to obey any of the Court’s discovery orders or to otherwise participate in litigation by opposing any of Plaintiff’s discovery motions, the Court finds that no lesser remedy will produce compliance. The Court will determine whether fines or monetary sanctions are warranted at the contempt hearing. \rConclusion\rBased on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion is granted. \rThe Court orders Defendant David L. Kagel to appear in Department 50 on ________________, at 10:00 a.m. to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for failing to comply with the Court’s October 16, 2020 Order Re: Motion to Compel Responses to Inspection Demands, Set One, and for Sanctions against David Kagel.\rPlaintiff is ordered to give notice of this Order.\r\rDATED: March 22, 2021\t\t\t________________________________\rHon. Teresa A. Beaudet\rJudge, Los Angeles Superior Court\r\r"},"foundBy":null,"pattern":null,"tabName":null}],"Range":{"$id":"16","ts":{"$ref":"13"},"_Start":0,"_End":1402,"_Text":"“As a general rule, the elements of contempt include (1) a valid order, (2) knowledge of the order, (3) ability to comply with the order, and (4) willful failure to comply with the order.” (In re Ivey (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 793, 798.) \rHere, the Court finds that Plaintiff has submitted sufficient evidence, by way of counsel’s declaration, to support the issuance of an order to show cause why Defendant should not be held in contempt for his disobedience of the October 16, 2020 order. Particularly in light of the fact that Defendant has failed to obey any of the Court’s discovery orders or to otherwise participate in litigation by opposing any of Plaintiff’s discovery motions, the Court finds that no lesser remedy will produce compliance. The Court will determine whether fines or monetary sanctions are warranted at the contempt hearing. \rConclusion\rBased on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion is granted. \rThe Court orders Defendant David L. Kagel to appear in Department 50 on ________________, at 10:00 a.m. to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for failing to comply with the Court’s October 16, 2020 Order Re: Motion to Compel Responses to Inspection Demands, Set One, and for Sanctions against David Kagel.\rPlaintiff is ordered to give notice of this Order.\r\rDATED: March 22, 2021\t\t\t________________________________\rHon. Teresa A. Beaudet\rJudge, Los Angeles Superior Court\r\r"}},"master":"___RESULTS_5","kernel_data":"In re Ivey (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 793, 798In re Ivey (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 793, 798In re Ivey (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 793, 798Full.CaseCitationciteCaseNameXYZZY v. KamalaCaseName.FirstPartyIveyCaseName.FirstParty._PatternParty.PartyCaseName.FirstParty.PartyIveyCaseName.InReIn reCourtParenthetical (2000) CourtParenthetical._PatternCourtParenthetical.CourtParentheticalCourtParenthetical.Date2000 CourtParenthetical.Date._PatternCourtParenthetical.Date.DateCourtParenthetical.Date.Year2000CourtParenthetical.Date.Year._PatternCourtParenthetical.Date.Year.YearCourtParenthetical.Date.Year.Year2000CourtParenthetical.ForbiddenComma._PatternForbiddenComma.ForbiddenCommaCourtParenthetical.Switch ( [ L (CourtParenthetical.Switch ( [ L.((CourtParenthetical.Switch ( [ L._PatternSwitch ( [ L.Switch ( [ LCourtParenthetical.Switch ) ] R) CourtParenthetical.Switch ) ] R.))CourtParenthetical.Switch ) ] R._PatternSwitch ) ] R.Switch ) ] RFirstPartyIvey HAS_AUTHORITATIVE_DATAYESNY L Paren(NY R Paren)Reporter85 Cal.App.4th 793, 798Reporter.[[Reporter.]]Reporter.__PinPages798Reporter.__PinPages._PatternPinPages.PinPagesReporter.__PinPages.First798Reporter.__PinPages.First.__PageNumber798Reporter.__PinPages.First._PatternFirstPageInRange.FirstPageInRangeReporter._PatternReporter.ReporterReporter.FirstPage793Reporter.NameCal. App. 4thReporter.pagepageReporter.Reporter.pagepageReporter.RequiredComma, Reporter.RequiredComma._PatternRequiredComma.RequiredCommaReporter.RequiredComma.Comma,Reporter.Volume85RequiredComma, RequiredComma._PatternRequiredComma.RequiredCommasuprasupra, supra.,, supra._PatternShortCaseSupra.ShortCaseSuprasupra.suprasupramaster_name___RESULTS_5"},"IconIndicator":{"Id":1,"Title":"Cite is formatted correctly, its long and short form are automatically being updated, and it will be included in TOA.","IconType":1,"ImagePath":"~/Content/Images/CCF/RecognizedNoSuggestions.png","Description":"Number of cites recognized by system as valid."},"Display":"In re Ivey (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 793, 798","CitationRichText":"In re Ivey (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 793, 798","IconShepardSignal":{"Id":1,"Title":"Positive treatment - cases","IconType":0,"ImagePath":"/Content/Images/IconSignalPositive.gif","Description":null},"ShepardSignalLink":"https://advance.lexis.com/api/shepards?context=1000516&id=urn:contentItem:7XX0-B8P1-2NSD-K34V-00000-00","ShowShepardSignal":true,"ShowParentLink":false,"ParentCitation":null,"SuggestionsForCitation":[],"SuggestionsForCite":[],"SelectedSuggestion":null,"IsSuggestionEnabled":false,"UseCurrentIconIndicator":{"Id":1,"Title":"Cite is formatted correctly, its long and short form are automatically being updated, and it will be included in TOA.","IconType":1,"ImagePath":"~/Content/Images/CCF/RecognizedNoSuggestions.png","Description":"Number of cites recognized by system as valid."},"UseSuggestionIconIndicator":{"Id":1,"Title":"Cite is formatted correctly, its long and short form are automatically being updated, and it will be included in TOA.","IconType":1,"ImagePath":"~/Content/Images/CCF/RecognizedNoSuggestions.png","Description":"Number of cites recognized by system as valid."},"OriginalUseCurrentIconIndicator":{"Id":1,"Title":"Cite is formatted correctly, its long and short form are automatically being updated, and it will be included in TOA.","IconType":1,"ImagePath":"~/Content/Images/CCF/RecognizedNoSuggestions.png","Description":"Number of cites recognized by system as valid."},"CitationMarkupText":"In re Ivey (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 793, 798","ShortText":"85 Cal. App. 4th 793","IsParentCorrect":true,"IsParentCorrectableConfirmed":false,"IsParentUnknownConfirmed":false,"IsParentCorrectable":false,"IsParentUnknown":false,"CitationOriginalText":"In re Ivey (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 793, 798","ModifiedCiteText":null,"MarkUp":null,"IsCheckCurrent":false,"PreviousCitationRetain":"In re Ivey (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 793, 798"},"CQ":"","TOA":"","html":"\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

In re Ivey (2000)\r\n85 Cal.App.4th 793, 798

\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n"}" docpart="6F9B468B6FE24CCF8EE6AF40FF77F8B1">In re Ivey (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 793, 798In re Ivey (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 793, 798In re Ivey (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 793, 798Full.CaseCitationciteCaseNameXYZZY v. KamalaCaseName.FirstPartyIveyCaseName.FirstParty._PatternParty.PartyCaseName.FirstParty.PartyIveyCaseName.InReIn reCourtParenthetical (2000) CourtParenthetical._PatternCourtParenthetical.CourtParentheticalCourtParenthetical.Date2000 CourtParenthetical.Date._PatternCourtParenthetical.Date.DateCourtParenthetical.Date.Year2000CourtParenthetical.Date.Year._PatternCourtParenthetical.Date.Year.YearCourtParenthetical.Date.Year.Year2000CourtParenthetical.ForbiddenComma._PatternForbiddenComma.ForbiddenCommaCourtParenthetical.Switch ( [ L (CourtParenthetical.Switch ( [ L.((CourtParenthetical.Switch ( [ L._PatternSwitch ( [ L.Switch ( [ LCourtParenthetical.Switch ) ] R) CourtParenthetical.Switch ) ] R.))CourtParenthetical.Switch ) ] R._PatternSwitch ) ] R.Switch ) ] RFirstPartyIvey HAS_AUTHORITATIVE_DATAYESNY L Paren(NY R Paren)Reporter85 Cal.App.4th 793, 798Reporter.[[Reporter.]]Reporter.__PinPages798Reporter.__PinPages._PatternPinPages.PinPagesReporter.__PinPages.First798Reporter.__PinPages.First.__PageNumber798Reporter.__PinPages.First._PatternFirstPageInRange.FirstPageInRangeReporter._PatternReporter.ReporterReporter.FirstPage793Reporter.NameCal. App. 4thReporter.pagepageReporter.Reporter.pagepageReporter.RequiredComma, Reporter.RequiredComma._PatternRequiredComma.RequiredCommaReporter.RequiredComma.Comma,Reporter.Volume85RequiredComma, RequiredComma._PatternRequiredComma.RequiredCommasuprasupra, supra.,, supra._PatternShortCaseSupra.ShortCaseSuprasupra.suprasupramaster_name___RESULTS_5","Markup":"In re Ivey (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 793, 798","Master":"___RESULTS_5","name":"CITRUS_BOOKMARK5","Original_string":"In re Ivey (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 793, 798","Page":null,"Parallel":"","Pattern":"Full.CaseCitation","PinPage":"798","ReadOrderIndex":3269,"Refers_To":null,"ShortText":"85 Cal. App. 4th 793","Start":3269,"Story":"wdMainTextStory"},"TOA":"","html":"\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n

In\r\nre Ivey (2000)\r\n85 Cal.App.4th 793, 798

\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n"}" docpart="6F9B468B6FE24CCF8EE6AF40FF77F8B1">In re Ivey (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 793, 798.)

Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff has submitted sufficient evidence, by way of counsel’s declaration, to support the issuance of an order to show cause why Defendant should not be held in contempt for his disobedience of the October 16, 2020 order. Particularly in light of the fact that Defendant has failed to obey any of the Court’s discovery orders or to otherwise participate in litigation by opposing any of Plaintiff’s discovery motions, the Court finds that no lesser remedy will produce compliance. The Court will determine whether fines or monetary sanctions are warranted at the contempt hearing.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion is granted.

The Court orders Defendant David L. Kagel to appear in Department 50 on ________________, at 10:00 a.m. to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for failing to comply with the Court’s October 16, 2020 Order Re: Motion to Compel Responses to Inspection Demands, Set One, and for Sanctions against David Kagel.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this Order.

DATED: March 22, 2021 ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court

Case Number: BC627822    Hearing Date: October 16, 2020    Dept: 50

 

 

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

LAWRENCE B. ROBBINS, m.d.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

DAVID L. KAGEL, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.:

BC627822

Hearing Date:

October 16, 2020

Hearing Time:

10:00 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INSPECTION DEMANDS, SET ONE, AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DAVID KAGEL

Background

On July 21, 2016, Plaintiff Lawrence B. Robbins, M.D. (“Plaintiff”) filed action against Defendant David L. Kagel (“Defendant”). On May 20, 2020, Plaintiff served Inspection Demands, Set One (the “Inspection Requests”) on Defendant. (Martinez Decl., ¶¶3-4, Exh. 1.) To date, Defendant has not provided responses to Plaintiff’s Inspection Requests or responded to Plaintiff’s meet and confer letter. (Id. at ¶¶5-8.)

Plaintiff now moves for an order compelling Defendant to provide responses to Plaintiff’s Inspection Requests. Defendant has not opposed.

Discussion

If a party to whom an inspection demand was directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses without objections. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300(b).) Moreover, failure to timely serve responses waives objections to the requests. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300(a).) “[T]he court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300(c).)

Here, Defendant has not provided any responses to the Inspection Requests. Further, Defendant has not opposed the motion and the Court is unaware of any other circumstances that make the imposition of sanctions unjust. Accordingly, the motion is granted and sanctions are warranted.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion is granted.

Defendant is ordered to serve complete verified responses, without objections to Plaintiff’s Requests for Inspection, Set One, within 20 days of the date of service of this Order.

The Court grants Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions. The Court finds that a total award of $1,070 (2 hours x $505 per hour + a $60 filing fee) to be reasonable. Therefore, the Court orders Defendant to pay $1,070 in monetary sanctions to Plaintiff within 30 days of the date of service this Order.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this Order.

DATED: October 16, 2020 ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court