Medina-Puerta v. Goon

Decision Date10 March 2022
Docket NumberH045755
PartiesANTONIO MEDINA-PUERTA, Appellant, v. MARY GOON, Respondent.
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Order Filed Date 3/22/22

Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. 17CP000154

ORDER MODIFYING OPINION NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT

LIE J.

THE COURT:

It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on March 10, 2022, be modified as follows:

1. On page 8, following the first full paragraph, insert the following:

E March 6, 2018 Order

On March 6, 2018, a different judge denied as moot Medina-Puerta's pending discovery motions and related motions for sanctions "as this case is now post judgment and discovery is closed."

2. On page 17, the first full paragraph, beginning "To the extent" is deleted and the following paragraph is inserted in its place:

As to Medina-Puerta's own motions to compel discovery and for the imposition of discovery sanctions, he has not established that the denial of these motions as moot is an appealable order under Family Code section 3554 or Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1. (See, e.g., Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(2)(B) [appellant's brief to "[s]tate that the judgment appealed from is final, or explain why the order appealed from is appealable"].) Irrespective of this procedural defect, the substance of Medina-Puerta's argument for reversing the March 6 order is contingent on reversal of the March 2 order striking his motion to modify child support. There being no basis for reversing the March 2 order, the March 6 order must stand as well.

3. On page 17, under heading III., the first sentence beginning "The order" is deleted and the following sentence is inserted:

The orders appealed from are affirmed.

There is no change in the judgment.

Appellant's petition for rehearing is denied.

DANNER, ACTING P.J. WILSON, J.

LIE J.

Antonio Medina-Puerta appeals from an order striking his motion to modify child support, as a terminating sanction for his abuse of the discovery process. His claims challenge the authority of the trial judge to issue any orders in the parentage action, the procedural regularity of the order for terminating sanctions, as well as its merits. Because the record substantiates none of Medina-Puerta's claims about the trial judge or process while amply supporting the court's factual findings and exercise of discretion, we affirm the order.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Medina-Puerta and Goon had a lengthy litigation history in the Orange County Superior Court before their parentage action was ordered transferred to the Santa Clara County Superior Court.[1] Because that history informed the trial court determination from which Medina-Puerta appeals, we include it here.

After Medina-Puerta's paternity was established as to minor children M. and N., Goon was ordered to pay him $23 per month in child support. Six years later, Medina-Puerta sought modification of the support order, claiming that expiration of his unemployment benefits constituted a change in circumstances. The court agreed that modification was warranted but-finding that Medina-Puerta had the ability and opportunity to earn an annual income of $95, 000-ordered him to pay Goon $706 per month.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Three, affirmed that support order in an unpublished decision (Medina-Puerta v. Goon (Jun. 27, 2012, G045387) [nonpub. opn.]). It rejected Medina-Puerta's challenge to the commissioner's jurisdiction and impartiality and concluded that the trial court had appropriately considered Medina-Puerta's bank records, "the production of which [he] fought tooth and nail," to find" 'there has been a huge amount of secreting money, as evidenced by the litigation, over these subpoenas and the efforts by the petitioner to not have those be discovered. There is a huge source of money coming in and out of these banks over the last year or two which is totally unexplained. I think basically there is a shell game going on with money from bank account to bank account.'" The reviewing court further observed, "While there is no requirement a parent act in bad faith before earning capacity may be imputed [citation], bad faith has arguably been demonstrated here."

Four months after the filing of the unpublished decision, Medina-Puerta again requested modification of child support, claiming that he was disabled and receiving Social Security disability benefits of $621.74 per month. Because a person receiving such benefits must have less than $2, 000 in assets, the court in 2013 reduced his monthly support obligation to $0.

On October 1, 2015, Medina-Puerta sought further modification of child support, this time seeking payment of support by Goon, as well as modification of custody and visitation. Because by then both Goon and Medina-Puerta resided in Santa Clara County, the Orange County Superior Court in 2016 ordered the matter transferred to the Santa Clara County Superior Court, after resolving the pending custody and visitation issue, but did not rule on the requested modification of support.

In early 2017, the Santa Clara County Superior Court continued the matter for both parties to conduct discovery.

On July 10, 2017, Goon filed a motion to compel discovery to be heard on August 11, 2017, the same date previously set for hearing on another motion by Medina-Puerta to modify custody and visitation.

A. Hearing on August 11, 2017

After protracted discussion of his request for an interim order of support resulted in that request being continued for one month, Medina-Puerta asked to continue the hearing on Goon's motion to compel discovery and a vocational evaluation, on the ground that he was unable to proceed that day. He initially asserted a continuance was necessary because he was unable to hear the proceedings, so the trial court provided him with an assisted-listening device. He next denied having been served with Goon's motion, and the court noted that it had set the date when both parties were present, and that he had filed a responsive declaration. He then claimed that he was "mentally incapable" of participating in the hearing, due to jetlag. The court denied that request as well, noting that Medina-Puerta "does appear to be active and alert in court and is certainly able to converse with me."

Goon's motion to compel was based on the asserted inadequacy of Medina-Puerta's production of documents and his answers at his deposition on: (1) the income of his company; (2) bank accounts he had opened and had been using in his sons' names; (3) a $15 million lawsuit against Microsoft that he had settled; (4) his disability; and (5) frequent financial contributions he received from his family. Goon also sought an order compelling Medina-Puerta to provide his Social Security statement in order to determine his projected retirement income.

The court granted the motion to compel on all issues, subject to a protective order regulating use of records Medina-Puerta produced as to his disability. The court also ordered that Medina-Puerta undergo a vocational evaluation, at Goon's expense, for the purpose of determining his capacity to financially support the children. The court awarded Goon sanctions of $1, 000 for attorney fees to be paid in installments of $50 per month.[2]

B. Goon's Request for Order to Compel or for Terminating Sanctions

On December 19, 2017, Goon filed a request for order to compel discovery or, alternatively, to impose terminating sanctions. Medina-Puerta filed a written opposition to Goon's request on January 5, 2018. In his opposition, Medina-Puerta raised multiple procedural objections and also answered the specifics of Goon's claims that his performance did not comply with the court order compelling his further deposition testimony.

C. Hearing on January 17, 2018

The court heard argument by both parties as to the merits and procedural correctness of Goon's request for terminating sanctions, then took the matter under submission. It then proceeded to matters related to contempt and child custody and visitation, which form the basis for Medina-Puerta's claim of bias.

1. Medina-Puerta's Order to Show Cause Re: Contempt

Medina-Puerta testified regarding two separate occasions on which he alleged that Goon was in contempt of the custody and visitation orders. The first occurred the previous summer, when Goon allowed M. to stay with her during a four-week period designated as Medina-Puerta's parenting time. Specifically, on the morning Medina-Puerta and the boys were supposed to leave for their annual four-week trip to Spain, M., then 16 and a half, refused to go. Medina-Puerta told M., "Well, [M.], this is my custodial time so . . . while I am in Spain with [N.] . . . you are going to take your tent that you use all the time with the Boy Scouts, you are going to put it in the backyard, and you are going to be there until I come back." Medina-Puerta asserted that Goon "intentionally and willfully disobeyed [the custody order] by taking [M.] in her house all [four weeks of Medina-Puerta's absence] as if it were her custodial time." The second violation occurred when Medina-Puerta went to pick up the boys at their school for the start of his custodial time but was initially unable to find them. Medina-Puerta eventually discovered the boys sitting with Goon in her car: "I saw them. They were eating. They have bags of McDonald's with them. And the respondent acknowledges that she has been with them, she went to buy food for them, all during my custodial time."

After Medina-Puerta rested, the trial court granted Goon's motion to dismiss the contempt citation for insufficiency of evidence that Goon intentionally interfered with his custodial time. Medina-Puerta immediately asked the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT