Case Number: BC528734    Hearing Date: September 30, 2014    Dept: 46

Case Number: BC528734
PLS FINANCIAL SERVICES INC ET AL VS CARLOS CORLETO ET AL
Filing Date: 11/27/2013
Case Type: Other Commercial/Business Tort (General Jurisdiction)

09/30/2014 at 08:30 am in department 46 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Order to Show Cause (RE:COMPLIANCE WITH THE PRELIMINARYINJUNCTION ORDER)

TENTATIVE RULING: There is adequate evidence provided in the declarations of Shou, Ngoi, and Pencille (considered for this hearing to be the charging affidavits) for the court to find jurisdiction to arraign defendant Bright Suresh Sukumaran with contempt, but not as to other co-defendants. The court will set an OSC regarding Contempt and Arraignment for 10/09/2014 unless defendant Bright Suresh Sukumaran waives notice and arraignment and wishes to enter a plea of not guilty. 10/09/2014 will not be the trial, only arraignment and trial setting. The trial will be set on a date within 45 days of date of arraignment.

The order, edited to remove cross-outs, that was issued on 12/17/2013 and signed by Judge James Chalfant states:

“To Defendants::Pending further order of this Court, you and any other persons acting with you or in your behalf are hereby ordered:(a) to cease using and to return to Plaintiffs all property of Plaintiffs in your possession, including but not limited to: (i) all of Plaintiffs’ financial data; (ii) all income statements created or developed by, at or originated from Plaintiffs, or either of them;(iii) deleted (b) to cease and desist using or disclosing in any way Plaintiffs’ trade secrets or confidential information described in paragraph (a), above; (c) to refrain from providing, disclosing, forwarding, or transferring any of Plaintiffs’ trade secrets and confidential information … described in paragraph (a), above—to any third party, including any current or future 2 employer;

The defendants in this action are Carlos Corletto, Bright Suresh Sukumaran, and Sharrel Daniel. Carlos Corletto and Bright Suresh Sukumaran are self-represented. Sharrel Daniel is represented by Geoffrey Lyon.

The declaration of Kimpo Ngoi cites portions of the of the deposition of Bright Suresh Sukumaran to the effect that after the order he determined not to search his computer because none of Plaintiff’s financial documents were on his computer. He states that he hired a computer expert to search Bright Suresh Sukumaran’s computer and numerous financial documents were discovered. Lars Shou, the computer expert states in his declaration of 06/09/2014 that he found financial documents on the computer at the time of his inspection.

The elements necessary to the finding of jurisdiction to pursue a contempt are:
“The facts essential to jurisdiction for a contempt proceeding are ‘(1) the making of the order; (2) knowledge of the order; (3) ability of the respondent to render compliance; (4) willful disobedience of the order.’ [Citations.]” In Re Liu (1969) 273 Cal.App.2d 135, 140-141. Further, “[t]he record of the court must affirmatively show upon its face the facts upon which jurisdiction depends so that an appellate court can determine if a contempt has been committed. [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 146.)

Here, the evidence is sufficient as to all necessary elements for defendant Bright Suresh Sukumaran but there is no evidence of willful disobedience provided as to other defendants. Therefore charges of contempt will be limited to Bright Suresh Sukumaran. The counter-declaration by Bright Suresh Sukumaran may raise an issue of fact, but the court must base contempt citation on the moving declarations.

Bright Suresh Sukumaran is ordered to appear for arraignment on 10/09/2014.

IT IS SO ORDERED:

Frederick C. Shaller, Judge