United Grand Corp. v. Stollof, 071318 CAAPP2, B279215
| Judge | WE CONCUR: BIGELOW, P. J., RUBIN, J. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Docket Number | B279215 |
| Parties | UNITED GRAND CORPORATION, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MARCIE STOLLOF, Defendant and Respondent. |
| Date | 13 July 2018 |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. BC554172, Mark Borenstein, Judge. Dismissed.
Cyrus Sanai for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Cozen O'Connor, Erik L. Jackson and Nathan Dooley for Defendant and Respondent.
GOODMAN, J. [*]
Following the payment of discovery sanctions in full by defendant and respondent Marcie Stollof on April 29, 2016, the trial court ordered plaintiff and appellant United Grand Corporation (United Grand) to file a “code compliant” acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment and to pay certain attorney fees, which it failed to do. United Grand appealed the April order and other related orders. Stollof moved to dismiss the appeal under the disentitlement doctrine. After examining the record, we agree with Stollof that applying the disentitlement doctrine is appropriate in this case due to United Grand's violation of the trial court's orders. We therefore dismiss the appeal.
BACKGROUND
In connection with Los Angeles Superior Court case No. BC554172, 1 on October 6, 2015, the trial court imposed postjudgment discovery sanctions against Stollof and in favor of United Grand in the amount of $2, 500. After Stollof paid the discovery sanctions amount in full, a dispute arose between the parties involving United Grand's execution of an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment, the subject of which is the focus of this appeal.
1. The Trial Court Issues Orders Requiring United Grand to File an Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment and to Pay Certain Attorney Fees
On March 30, 2016, Stollof filed a motion to compel, demanding that United Grand file an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment because it had received the discovery sanctions payment in full.
On April 29, 2016, the trial court granted Stollof's motion to compel, ordering United Grand to file a “code compliant” acknowledgement of satisfaction of judgment by May 6, 2016, and that its counsel pay attorney fees in the amount of $500 to Stollof's counsel by June 1, 2016.
On May 16, 2016, United Grand filed a motion to vacate and reconsider the April 29, 2016 order. It argued the April order was “void” because (1) Stollof's demand was made before the discovery sanctions payment had cleared the bank in violation Code of Civil Procedure[2] section 724.050;3 and (2) the trial court's award of attorney fees against United Grand's counsel, and not United Grand, was in violation of section 724.080.4
On August 1, 2016, the trial court granted in part United Grand's motion for reconsideration, ruling only that United Grand, and not its counsel, must pay the $500 in attorney fees.5 Effectuating this determination, on August 15, 2016, the trial court issued a nunc pro tunc order correcting the April order to require United Grand, and not its counsel, to make the $500 payment.
2. The Trial Court Sets an Order to Show Cause Requiring United Grand to Explain Why It Should Not Be Adjudged in Contempt of Court for Violating Its Order
On May 4, 2016, United Grand executed an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment, omitting, among other things, the identity of the judgment debtor in violation of section 724.060, subdivision (a)(3).6 On May 24, 2016, United Grand executed an amended acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment, again, omitting the identity of the judgment debtor.
On May 23, 2016, Stollof filed a request to show cause initiating indirect contempt proceedings against United Grand for failing to file a “code compliant” acknowledgement of satisfaction of judgment in violation of the April 29, 2016 order. The trial court signed the order to show cause and directed United Grand to explain why it should not be adjudged in contempt of court.
On August 15, 2016, United Grand filed a motion to vacate the order to show cause and dismiss the contempt proceedings. United Grand again argued that it had no legal obligation to comply with the April 29, 2016 order because it was “void.” It also contended the order to show cause was “facially defective” for failing to follow the notification procedures of the California Rules of Court and other statutory requirements.
Stollof opposed the motion, arguing: (1) the trial court had authority to order the acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment under section 724.030;7 (2) United Grand was estopped from complaining about the April order because it consented to the trial court's jurisdiction and attempted to comply with the order by filing acknowledgments of satisfaction of judgment; and (3) Stollof personally served United Grand with the order to show cause and the accompanying charging affidavit in compliance with the notice requirements.
On September 7, 2016, the trial court denied United Grand's motion to vacate, setting a trial date on the order to show cause on January 18, 2017. After United Grand filed several ex parte applications requesting a stay of the contempt proceedings, the trial court granted one such request, staying the contempt trial.8
3. The Trial Court Denies Stollof's Second Motion to Compel United Grand to File an Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment
On June 15, 2016, Stollof filed a second motion to compel demanding that United Grand file an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment. On September 23, 2016, the trial court denied Stollof's second motion to compel, ruling it was “unnecessary.” The trial court noted it already had ordered United Grand to file a satisfaction of judgment so there was no reason to make the same order a second time. And it noted there was a contempt trial pending to determine whether United Grand's failure to comply with the April order was willful. As noted above, the contempt trial was eventually stayed by the trial court.
4. United Grand Appeals the Trial Court's April 29, 2016 Order and Other Related Orders
On October 7, 2016, United Grand filed a notice of appeal, purporting to appeal from (1) the April 29, 2016 order granting Stollof's motion to compel acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment; (2) the August 1, 2016 order granting in part United Grand's motion to vacate and reconsider the order of April 29, 2016; (3) the August 15, 2016 nunc pro tunc order correcting the April 29, 2016 order; (4) the September 7, 2016 order denying United Grand's motion to vacate order to show cause and dismiss contempt proceedings; and (5) the September 23, 2016 order denying Stollof's second motion to compel acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment.
DISCUSSION
Stollof has moved to dismiss the appeal under the disentitlement doctrine9 due to United Grand's failure to comply with the April 29, 2016 order. We agree with Stollof and dismiss the appeal.
“An appellate court has the inherent power, under the ‘disentitlement doctrine,' to dismiss an appeal by a party that refuses to comply with a lower court order.” (Stoltenberg v. Ampton Investments (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1229.) “ ‘Appellate...
To continue reading
Request your trial