Order to Show Cause Re: money sanctions
RG21108716: Janco Industries, Inc VS Williams 05/29/2026 Order to Show Cause Re: money sanctions on E. Williams in Department 25
Tentative Ruling - 05/28/2026 Jenna Whitman
ORDER RE: CASE MANAGEMENT AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
The Court has ordered the following after review of the case.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court is inclined to discharge the 3/20/2026 Order to Show Cause, rather than imposing sanctions at this time, and to issue a new Order to Show Cause re: Sanctions and further orders regulating the parties' conduct in this proceedings. Appearances are not expected or required on 5/29/2026.
3/20/2026 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: BACKGROUND. On 3/20/2026, the Court issued the Order to Show Cause re: Sanctions to Ellen Williams (captioned as a "Case Management Order", referred to herein as the "OSC") in response to multiple communications Williams filed/transmitted directly to the Court, without the authorization of her then counsel of record; prior complaints that Williams was not serving documents via CaseAnywhere (and, as a result, not all opposing counsel were served); and finally, at the request of the Discovery Referee, who also received unauthorized unilateral communications from Williams, while Williams was represented.
Williams did so even after being admonished by the Referee and her own counsel, Craig Wallace. There were approximately 10 such communications. As the Court tentatively observed in the OSC, Williams' communications were improper and unauthorized, causing unnecessary confusion for the Special Master, Referee, and opposing counsel.
The OSC required Williams to show good cause for such conduct, and ordered her to refrain from unauthorized and ex parte communications with the other parties, appointed neutrals, and the Court, going forward.
In her declaration filed in response to the OSC, Williams denies that she ever engaged in ex parte communications, claiming that her emails were "invited" by the Special Master and that they were proper because they were limited to scheduling and procedural matters. (She does not address any specific communications with the Referee; however, the items filed with the Court were not so limited.) In her declaration, Williams also asserts that she never failed to serve papers on opposing parties' counsel, without addressing the assertions that she failed to serve documents via CaseAnywhere, as ordered, and improperly served documents herself in violation of CCP 1013a.
Most importantly, Williams' declaration focused entirely on her communications with SM Edwards, while ignoring the communications that are the subject of the Referee's recommendation and those that were received directly by the Court. She also fails to acknowledge that her communications were not authorized by her own counsel or the impact that her conduct has had on the ability of the parties' appointed neutrals to move the case forward. In RG21108716: Janco Industries, Inc VS Williams 05/29/2026 Order to Show Cause Re: money sanctions on E. Williams in Department 25 short, she fails to take any responsibility for her actions, acknowledge its impact it has on the administration of justice, or demonstrate any remorse (notwithstanding the Court's citation to authority prohibiting such conduct).
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
This was, frankly, astounding, particularly in light of Williams' apparent sophistication, including in matters of civil litigation. However, Referee Gallo reported on 4/15/2026 that since the 3/20/2026 OSC had issued, Williams had not engaged in further improper communications or violated the order, and was generally cooperative; Gallo requested that the hearing on OSC be continued for monitoring, and the Court continued the hearing to 5/29/2026.
SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT. The Referee filed a report on 5/13/2026 and an amended report on 5/22/2026, detailing what appear to be include violations of both the 3/20/2026 OSC to refrain from unilateral communications while represented and of repeated admonishments by both the Special Master Bruce Edwards and the undersigned to keep interactions (while self-represented) professional and civil and refrain from ad hominem attacks. Melissa Meyers, counsel for Janco Industries, also filed a declaration recounting numerous gratuitous insults and unsubstantiated accusations Williams has published to all opposing counsel and the appointed neutrals. These submissions disclose the following violations of the Court's 3/20/2026 Order:
3/29/2026: Williams emailed Referee Gallo, copying SM Edwards and all counsel, while she was represented. (The email apparently also included personal attacks on counsel Meyers.) On 3/30/2026, Williams' then counsel acknowledged the impropriety of the email.
4/1/2026: Williams, while represented, sent a direct email to all counsel, copying the SM and Discovery Referee, disputing discovery matters. (This email also included inflammatory content, including gloating, expressions of unwillingness to meet and confer on litigation disputes, and a purported "warning shot.")
5/8/2026: Williams, who had been temporarily without counsel, but was again represented, unilaterally emailed Discovery Referee Gallo. After Gallo objected and informed all counsel, Williams' then counsel agreed to advise Williams regarding the impropriety of such conduct.
5/20/2026: Williams emailed Referee Gallo while represented by counsel, ostensibly to redirect emails to her current (not former) counsel and (as her current counsel puts it) to "vent" about the recent site inspection. This email constituted a violation of the 3/20/2026 order. Further, it was highly unprofessional, castigating Gallo for a minor error, demeaning the Referee's intelligence and integrity by characterizing her as customer service representative (for opposing parties), claiming without substantiation that Gallo engaged in ethical breaches, and insulting her by suggesting that her "brand identity" aligns with discounted rather than luxury products. Williams signed off, in French, with the following (with credit to Google translate): "You may now submit your recommendation for new sanctions against me, for having exercised my right to freedom of expression."
5/13/2026: Williams sent a further email to Referee Gallo while represented, violating the
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
RG21108716: Janco Industries, Inc VS Williams 05/29/2026 Order to Show Cause Re: money sanctions on E. Williams in Department 25 3/20/2026 order. This email incorporates a series of "blast" emails to Michael Kiesling, and copied to all opposing counsel, mainly focused on Williams' views of a hearing regarding a restraining order. Besides violating the 3/20/2026 order, the communications were gratuitous and incendiary. The emails also recount Williams' views of the recent site inspection; but rather than focusing on substantive issues, the email concentrates on taunting various participants for their conduct, choice of apparel, and hygienic shortcomings (and even attaches a photo of one participant's rear end, because his underwear was showing above his pants waistline).
5/15/2026: Williams circulated another another email "blast" to Referee Gallo, while represented, in violation of the 3/20/2026 Order. While this communication ostensibly concerned various aspects of the site inspection, it was peppered with insults referencing various attorneys as dumb and dumber, calling one party (or their employee) a "gang banger," suggesting another party is racist, and accusing counsel Meyers of sending a bomb to her house.
REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS. Counsel demand, and Gallo recommends, the immediate imposition of sanctions. The 3/20/2026 OSC was issued in response to Williams' conduct in February 2026. This conduct was highly improper but did not constitute a violation of an express court order. Thus, the Court is not inclined to issue sanctions, at this juncture. Procedurally, it would be premature and inconsistent with due process, as Williams has not yet been ordered to respond to the above, new allegations.
The 3/20/2026 Order to Show Cause is therefore DISCHARGED. Williams is admonished, however, that the Court's order of the same date barring unilateral communications while represented remains fully operative.
FURTHER ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. In light of the evidence presented, summarized above, Ellen Williams is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why she should not be sanctioned in the amount of $1,000.00 for each of the above-enumerated violations of the 3/20/2026 Order to refrain from unilateral communications while represented. (Code Civ. Proc., 177.5.)
Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions (CCP 177.5) is scheduled for 06/12/2026 at 02:30 PM in Department 25 at Rene C. Davidson Courthouse.
Any response by Williams to this Order to Show Cause shall be filed under oath and served no later than 6/9/2026, with a courtesy copy transmitted at the time of filing to dept25@alameda.courts.ca.gov.
SCOPE OF THIS ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE IS LIMITED. This OSC is directly solely to the claimed violations of the 3/20/2026 order (i.e., sending unilateral communications to counsel and appointed neutrals while represented) enumerated above.
In the event that any party or neutral complains of additional violations of this or other court orders, they shall file and serve an ex parte application for an Order to Show Cause, including
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
RG21108716: Janco Industries, Inc VS Williams 05/29/2026 Order to Show Cause Re: money sanctions on E. Williams in Department 25 the application; a declaration(s) and/or charging affidavit (in the event a finding of contempt is requested) identifying the date and terms of each order in question, and admissible evidence demonstrating the knowing, willful disobedience of each such order; and a [proposed] Order to Show Cause finding good cause for the issuance of such an order, and setting a hearing thereon. The application shall clearly state the nature of the sanctions requested. (See Freeman v. Superior Court, San Diego County (1955) 44 Cal.2d 533, 536; Lyon v. Sup.Ct. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 446, 452; CCP 1211.5, 1218(a).)
FURTHER ORDERS. Counsel also complain regarding the content and tenor of Williams' communications. While Williams was warned about this on more than one occasion, the Court has not yet issued a formal order barring ad hominem attacks. Thus, the statements in Williams' emails may furnish evidence of knowledge, state of mind, intent, and design, they cannot form a basis for imposing sanctions under the either the OSC issued on 3/20/2026 or the OSC issued this date.
That said, Williams' communications that have been disclosed to the Court thus far are abhorrent and undignified. Any reasonable human being would be ashamed of this conduct. Even in the rough and tumble of complex, highly-emotional litigation, litigants and their counsel are entitled to be treated with civility, dignity, and fairness. This means that counsel and parties, whether engaged in litigation activities in court or outside of court, must conduct themselves professionally and address the substance of arguments and positions, not attack and insult the opponents for purported deficiencies in character, motives, or personal traits.
When litigants fail to adhere to this standard, it erodes procedural justice, prejudices other parties' right to participate fully in the proceedings, and undermines the public trust in the legal process. It also (as these proceedings demonstrate) imposes needless costs upon opposing counsel and unnecessary burdens upon the Court.
Both the tenor and substance of Williams' communications are anathema to these principles. Williams is hereby ORDERED to REFRAIN from all such ad hominem attacks (i.e., attacks that are directed to an opponent's character, motives, or personal traits rather than addressing the substance of their claim or position). Future violations of this order may be subject to the imposition of sanctions, including monetary sanctions, and if appropriate, evidence, issue and/or terminating sanctions. Violations of this and the Court's prior orders may also be punishable in contempt.
Sanctions are a remedy of last resort, but will be issued if warranted. The Court sincerely hopes that with the guidance and support of her attorneys and other trusted persons, Williams will be able to exercise appropriate restraint and professionalism throughout the remainder of these proceedings.
Clerk is directed to serve copies of this order, with proof of service, to counsel and to selfrepresented parties of record.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
RG21108716: Janco Industries, Inc VS Williams 05/29/2026 Order to Show Cause Re: money sanctions on E. Williams in Department 25