Farnham v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal Jan 24, 1961 No. Civ. 6649Published

Before: Griffin

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hold petitioners in contempt because the underlying minute order was indefinite, failed to specify the obligated party, and lacked the necessary findings to support a sanction.

Issues

Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to initiate contempt proceedings based on an indefinite and defective minute order.
Whether the record established the necessary jurisdictional facts for contempt, including notice, ability to comply, and willful disobedience.

Disposition. Writ granted.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“There was no specific finding in the instant order that there was a refusal, without substantial justification, on behalf of the plaintiffs or their attorney to answer the question here involved”

“Since the minute order, upon which the order to show cause re contempt is so indefinite and otherwise defective, no point would be served in determining whether it could be classified as an appealable order.”

“the trial court is without jurisdiction to punish these petitioners for contempt upon the showing made”

GRIFFIN, P. J.

Petitioners Lewis E. and Mildred A. Farnham and their attorney, James C. Webb, seek a writ of prohibition to enjoin respondent court from further proceedings upon an order to show cause

in re

contempt against peti

[453]

tioners. The Farnhams were plaintiffs, cross-defendants and appellants in a civil action, number 84883, against defendant and respondent Walker & Lee, Inc., and defendant and cross-complainant N.M.G., Inc., a corporation, in the Superior Court of Orange County.

It appears that in that action defendant and cross-complainant, N.M.G., Inc., gave notice to petitioners that on October 28, 1960, it would move for an order requiring plaintiffs to admit or deny the genuineness and due execution of certain documents listed in a request for admissions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 2033, claimed to have been served on James C. Webb, their counsel, on September 9, 1960, by mail, and for an order compelling plaintiffs to answer certain interrogatories. It also asked for reasonable attorney’s fees in the sum of $100.

Attorney Webb filed an affidavit reciting that he did not receive the notice claimed to have been mailed on September 9, 1960, but first received knowledge of the request for admissions and interrogatories on October 17, I960; that he immediately prepared, filed and served upon defendant’s attorney his answer and reply thereto.

Apparently some hearing was had on October 28, 1960, resulting in the following minute order:

“84883 Farnham vs. Walker & Lee, Inc. ‘Motion for order, re: documents and for order compelling plaintiffs to answer interrogatories. Plaintiff represented by counsel, J. C. Webb. Defendant represented by counsel, Rowland Butler. Affidavit ordered filed. Motion granted. Counsel directed to file amended answer to Interrogatory #19. Sanction of $100.00 attorney fees ordered to be paid to counsel for defendant within a period of ten (10) days from this date.’ ENT. 11-9-60 es”

On November 24, 1960, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from this order.

Farnham v. Superior Court

AI Brief

GRIFFIN, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief