WISMETTAC ASIAN FOODS INC. VS INTL. BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****6751 Hearing Date: February 15, 2022 Dept: C

WISMETTAC ASIAN FOODS INC. v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS LOCAL 630, et al.

CASE NO.: ****6751

HEARING: 2/15/22 @ 10:30 AM

#5

ORDER

Defendant International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 630’s application for a contempt order is DENIED.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

Defendant International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 630 moves for an order of contempt against non-party Prudent Security Solutions.

A contempt proceeding is commenced by the filing of an affidavit (i.e. the charging allegations). (CCP 1211.) The affidavit frames the issues to be tried. (Reliable Enterprises, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 604, 616.) Parties requesting an OSC re Contempt must notify opposing counsel before presenting the application. If the court is satisfied that the affidavit alleges sufficient grounds for contempt, it signs an OSC re contempt, setting the date and the time for a hearing. (CCP 1212.)

On September 10, 2021, this court granted Defendants’ ex parte application requesting an OSC re Contempt against non-party Prudent Security Solutions’ violation of the court’s May 6, 2021 discovery order, and set the OSC re Contempt for December 7, 2021. On September 17, 2021, this court signed the OSC re Contempt.

The citee-respondent must be formally notified of the contempt charge and of the time and place of the hearing; otherwise, the court lacks jurisdiction to proceed. For this purpose, both the OSC and affidavit ordinarily must be served on respondent in a manner authorized for service of summons. (Cedars-Sinai Imaging Med. Group v. Sup.Ct. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1281, 1286.)

On December 28, 2021, Defendants filed a proof of service showing that the “Notice of Ruling re: OSC re: Contempt” was served on a Jane Doe for Prudent Security Solutions.

However, a Notice of Ruling is insufficient notice. Movant failed to show that the OSC and the Affidavit were served. Accordingly, the application is DENIED.

b'

Case Number: ****6751 Hearing Date: December 7, 2021 Dept: C

WISMETTAC ASIAN FOODS INC. v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS LOCAL 630, et al.

CASE NO.: ****6751

HEARING: 12/7/21 @ 10:30 AM

#4

TENTATIVE ORDER

Defendant International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 630’s application for a contempt order is DENIED.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

Defendant International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 630 moves for an order of contempt against non-party Prudent Security Solutions.

A contempt proceeding is commenced by the filing of an affidavit (i.e. the charging allegations). (CCP ; 1211.) The affidavit frames the issues to be tried. (Reliable Enterprises, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 604, 616.) Parties requesting an OSC re Contempt must notify opposing counsel before presenting the application. If the court is satisfied that the affidavit alleges sufficient grounds for contempt, it signs an OSC re contempt, setting the date and the time for a hearing. (CCP ; 1212.)

On September 10, 2021, this court granted Defendants’ ex parte application requesting an OSC re Contempt against non-party Prudent Security Solutions’ violation of the court’s May 6, 2021 discovery order, and set the OSC re Contempt for December 7, 2021. On September 17, 2021 this court signed the OSC re Contempt.

The citee-respondent must be formally notified of the contempt charge and of the time and place of the hearing; otherwise, the court lacks jurisdiction to proceed. For this purpose, both the OSC and affidavit ordinarily must be served on respondent in a manner authorized for service of summons. (Cedars-Sinai Imaging Med. Group v. Sup.Ct. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1281, 1286.)

Movant failed to file a proof of service showing that the OSC and the affidavit were “served in a manner authorized for service of summons.” Instead, the Notice of Ruling filed on September 13, 2021, shows that the Notice was served upon Prudent Security Solutions via first class mail and electronic service, and not in a manner authorized for service of summons. More importantly, the OSC re Contempt signed on September 17, 2021 and the affidavit were not served upon Prudent Security Solutions.

Accordingly, the application is DENIED.

Case Number: ****6751    Hearing Date: May 6, 2021    Dept: C

WISMETTAC ASIAN FOODS, INC. v. INTL. BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS

CASE NO.: ****6751

HEARING: 05/06/21

#3

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS LOCAL 630 and LUIS JAVIER VILLALVAZO’s unopposed Motion to Compel Compliance with Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records to Non-Party Witness Prudent Security Solutions is GRANTED. CCP ;1987.1.

Moving Party to give notice.

No Opposition filed as of May 4, 2021.

Prudent Security Solutions is ORDERED to produce all documents requested in the deposition notice in compliance with the deposition subpoena at issue no later than 30 days from the date of the Court’s issuance of this Order. The date may be extended by agreement of the parties.

“If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness…, the court, upon motion reasonably made by any person described in subdivision (b),…may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders.” (CCP ;1987.1(a).) “Disobedience to a subpoena, or a refusal to be sworn, or to answer as a witness, or to subscribe an affidavit or deposition when required, may be punished as a contempt by the court issuing the subpoena.” (CCP ;1991.)

Defendants issued a Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records to non-party Prudent Security Solutions (“PSS”) on or about September 23, 2020. (Kierig Decl., ¶4.) PSS was personally served with the Deposition Subpoena on or about October 1, 2020. (Kierig Decl., ¶6.)

To date, no responsive documents have been served in response to the Deposition Subpoena. Moreover, no Motion to Quash has been filed.

The unopposed Motion is GRANTED. Defendants have established that PSS was served with a valid Deposition Subpoena for production of business records, and that PSS failed to produce any responsive documents.

Defendants’ request for sanctions is GRANTED in the requested amount of $5,240.15 pursuant to CCP ;2025.480. Prudent Security Solutions is ORDERED to pay Defendants and their counsel of record sanctions in the total amount of $5,240.15 no later than 30 days from the Court’s issuance of this Order. This date may be extended by agreement of the parties.

Case Number: ****6751    Hearing Date: March 04, 2021    Dept: SEF

WISMETTAC ASIAN FOODS, INC. v. INTL. BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS

CASE NO.: ****6751

HEARING: 03/04/21

#1

TENTATIVE ORDER

Defendants INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS LOCAL 630’s and LUIS JAVIER VILLALVAZO’s Motion to Continue Trial and Trial-Related Dates is GRANTED.

Moving Party to give Notice.

Defendants INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS LOCAL 630’s and LUIS JAVIER VILLALVAZO (“Defendants”) move to continue trial and all related dates by at least 180 days. Trial is currently set for May 12, 2021.

Defendants argue that a trial continuance is necessary for the following reasons: (1) Discovery in this action will not be completed before the date trial is scheduled to begin; (2) Expert witness discovery will not be completed by the current expert discovery cut-off date; and (3) A jury trial cannot be safely held in just a few months due to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic. Importantly, Defendants Motion to Compel Compliance with Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records to Nonparty Witness Prudent Security Solutions is currently set for May 6, 2021 in Dept. SE-C. Defendants maintain that these documents are essential for Defendants to prepare their defense.

In Opposition, Plaintiff argues that a continuance should not be granted beyond 90 days on the grounds that trial has already been continued five times, and the subpoenaed documents sought by Defendants in their Motion to Compel Compliance are duplicative of other discovery in this case.

“Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits. The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good case requiring the continuance. Circumstances that may indicate good cause include…. (6) A party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts.” (CRC Rule 3.1332(c).)

It is undisputed that there remain unresolved discovery issues between the parties. The Court will not adjudicate the merits of Defendants’ discovery motion set for May 6, 2021, at this hearing. Moreover, the Court agrees that expert witness discovery will likely not be complete prior to the start of the current trial date due to hardships caused by the COVID-19 virus. Similarly, the Court notes that the jury trial currently scheduled to occur on May 12, 2021, and estimated to take place over the course of 5-7 days is unlikely to proceed on that date due to the impacts of COVID-19. For these reasons, and due to the congestion of the Court’s calendar, a continuance of at least 180 days is reasonable.

The Motion to Continue Trial for at least 180 days is GRANTED. The Final Status Conference and Trial are CONTINUED. Discovery will follow the new trial date based upon the difficulties in discovery resulting from the COVID-19 virus.