ITC FINANCIAL LICENSES, INC. VS. STAN SCHULDINER

On the Law & Motion/Discovery calendar for Tuesday, September 30, 2025, Line 1 (Part 1 of 2), DEFENDANT STAN SCHULDINER'S Motion For Order To Show Cause Why Defendants, Itc And Bancorp Should Not Be Held In Contempt And Motion For Sanctions.

Respondent and Cross-Complainant Stan Schuldner's (apparently incorrectly sued as Schuldiner) ("Respondent") motion for order to show cause is DENIED.

Defendant's request is based on the alleged willful failure by Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Incomm Financial Services, Inc., formerly known as ITC Financial Licenses, Inc. and Cross-Defendant the Bancorp Bank (incorrectly sued as the Bancorp, Inc.) (collectively [if imprecisely] "Petitioners") to deliver gift cards valued at $32,499 or $34,621 (depending on who one asks and when one asks; in any event, a discrepancy not material to this motion) to Defendant due under a June 2015 arbitration award that was confirmed by this court more than ten years ago.

Respondent now moves for an order to show cause why Petitioners should not be held in contempt under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1218(a). "As a general rule, the elements of contempt include (1) a valid order, (2) knowledge of the order, (3) ability to comply with the order, and (4) willful failure to comply with the order." (In re Ivey (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 793, 798 citing Anderson v. Superior Court (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1240, 1245.)

Here, all parties admit to having knowledge of the valid court order confirming the arbitration award. However, Petitioners offer multiple examples in their requests for judicial notice of reaching out to Respondent to get an appropriate address to mail the gift cards to and Respondent's ultimate refusal to accept the gift cards upon delivery. (See Petitioners' RJN, Exhibit 2.) The fact that Respondent has not received the gift cards is not due to any willful failure to comply with the order on Petitioners' part. Instead, it is the result of Respondent's serial delivery refusals. Thus, the record does not support the request for an OSC.

Similarly, Respondent's motion for sanctions under California Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5 is denied. Section 128.5 allows the court to award sanctions as a result of actions or tactics "made in bad faith, that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay." The record does not show Petitioners have acted in bad faith.

Petitioners' request for judicial notice of the four prior filings in this case (Petition to Confirm Contractual Arbitration Award from June 30, 2025; Declaration of Mathew M. Wrenshall in Support of Motion to Compel Mr. Schuldiner to Accept the Gift Cards or to Provide an Address Where the Gift Cards Can Be Sent from January 4, 2019; Respondent's Petition to Vacate and Respondent's Counter Claim from September 14, 2015; and Notice of Entry of Judgment from December 10, 2018) is granted as to all four documents. (See Evidence Code section 452(d).) The existence of these filings is not reasonably subject to dispute and is capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy; there is no evidence to the contrary. The court, however, does not take notice of assertions of fact or specific legal findings or analysis.

The parties are ordered to use the case caption established by the Petition to Confirm, filed June 30, 2015, and the Notice of Motion and Motion for Hearing on Petition to Confirm, filed July 7, 2015. If any party desires to seek a change in the caption, they are ordered to meet and confer with all parties before bringing any such motion.

Petitioners are ordered to prepare a proposed order which repeats the above text verbatim and email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the time set for hearing. (Tentative ruling continues in Part 2 of 2). | |