Case Number: 19STCV37538 Hearing Date: March 03, 2020 Dept: 32

Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Department 32

francisca Casco,

Petitioner,

v.

allstate northbrook indemnity company,

Respondent.

Case No.: 19STCV37538

Hearing Date: March 3, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion to compel compliance with prior orders

Petitioner Francisca Casco (“Petitioner”) moves to compel Respondent Allstate Northbrook Indemnity Company (“Respondent”) to comply with this Court’s order of November 22, 2020. Specifically, the Court ordered Defendant and Defendant’s counsel of record to pay sanctions in the amount of $1,240 within thirty (30) days of notice of the order. Now, Petitioner seeks to enforce that order.

As an initial matter, Petitioner served this motion on Respondent by mail on February 5, 2020. That is not sufficient notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).) Respondent has not opposed the motion, and thereby has not waived any objection to the insufficient notice. Therefore, the Court continues the hearing on this motion to March 13, 2020, at 1:30 p.m.

The Court also identified an error in its order. The Court inadvertently wrote the order to sanction “Defendant and Defendant’s counsel of record, Michael F. Moon . . . .” This is a mistake. The Court intended to sanction “Defendant and Defendant’s counsel of record, Kinkle, Rodiger & Spriggs.” The Court has inherent authority to reconsider any of its prior orders. (Le Francois v. Goel (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1094, 1096-1109.) The Court also has inherent authority to correct errors in its prior orders. Based upon the foregoing, the Court provides notice to the parties that it intends to hold a hearing on whether to change the order to impose sanctions against Kinkle, Rodiger & Spriggs rather than the handling attorney personally. The hearing shall be held on March 13, 2020, at 1:30 p.m.

In advance of that hearing, the Court issues the following tentative:

1. The Court’s tentative order is to change the sanctions order as discussed above.

2. The Court’s tentative order is not to undertake a contempt proceeding, as suggested by Petitioner. Contempt is an extraordinary remedy that should be reserved for situations in which the Court has no lesser means of enforcing its orders. The Court suspects that correcting the error in the sanctions order will resolve the issue. Regardless, contempt is not the appropriate procedure. Petitioner’s remedy is to enforce the prior sanctions order as a monetary judgment, which Petitioner may do at any time. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 680.230. 680.270, 699.510, subd. (a).)

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The hearing on Petitioner’s motion to compel compliance with the Court’s prior order is continued to March 13, 2020, at 1:30 p.m. The Court sets a hearing on its own motion for reconsideration of its sanctions order for March 13, 2020, at 1:30 p.m. The Court’s clerk shall provide notice.

DATED: March 3, 2020 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court