Case Number: SC127412 Hearing Date: September 10, 2019 Dept: P

TENTATIVE RULING

Ronald Masson et al. v. Stephanie Paine Case No.: SC127412

Hearing Date: 9-10-2019

Plaintiffs’ Motion to amend judgment and strike/tax costs/OSC re contempt

Plaintiffs sued their neighbor defendant for nuisance, alleging defendant’s dogs barked excessively. After a bench trial, plaintiffs not awarded damages nor a requested injunction removing the dogs from the property. The court did order the dogs to be kept inside between 9:00 pm and 7:00 am, unless accompanied or on a leash. Plaintiffs move to amend the judgment to remove language identifying defendant as the prevailing party and move to tax or strike defendant’s memorandum of costs.

Judge Newman’s ruling did not identify a prevailing party. The proposed judgment drafted by defendant and signed by the court identifies defendant as the prevailing party. Plaintiffs’ counsel was not served with the proposed judgment and was unable to object to this language. Halfen dec. at ¶3. Defendant does not oppose the motion or contest these representations. This language was improperly included. As to the substance of the proposed amendment, the outcome at trial was a “mixed bag.” There was no “prevailing party.” The motion to amend judgment is GRANTED. The judgment will be amended to state there was no prevailing party.

Motion to Tax Costs: As there was no prevailing party, neither party is entitled to costs. The motion to tax costs is MOOT.

OSC RE: Contempt: Plaintiffs allege defendant violated Judge Newman’s order regarding keeping the dogs indoors. Defendants’ declaration states the dogs were outside unaccompanied during prohibited hours, and photographic evidence shows the dogs were outside. In light of this evidence, on June 13, 2019 the court issued an order to show cause as to why defendant should not be held in contempt for failure to abide by Judge Newman’s order.

Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §1209 allows courts to issue contempt sanctions for disobedience of lawful court orders. Under Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §1211, when contempt is committed outside the court’s presence, an affidavit shall be presented regarding the facts constituting contempt. The elements are: (1) the rendition of a valid order, (2) the respondent’s knowledge of the order, (3) the respondent’s ability to comply with the order; and (4) the respondent’s willful disobedience of the order. Conn v. Sup. Court (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 774, 784. “A civil contempt proceeding is criminal in nature because of the penalties that may be imposed . . . [t]hus, an alleged contemnor is entitled to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt.” In re Witherspoon (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 1000, 1002; In re M.R. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 49, 57-58.

Defendant admits her dogs were briefly outside on a handful of occasions in violation of the order; plaintiffs state the dogs have been outside much more frequently and for longer than defendant admits. Masson dec. at ¶3, Paine dec. at ¶4, 18-27. Plaintiffs must prove contempt beyond a reasonable doubt. In light of the dueling declarations, plaintiffs fail to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant’s violations of the order were numerous, lengthy or willful. Defendant states that on the occasions in question she briefly allowed the dogs outside to relieve themselves, then promptly put them back inside. Paine dec. at ¶27. Plaintiffs have not provided evidence establishing contempt beyond a reasonable doubt.