People v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal Dec 29, 1965 No. Civ. 29966Published

Before: Frampton

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A trial court has a mandatory duty to hear and determine the merits of a contempt proceeding properly before it, and a court commissioner has the authority to sign a judgment based on a stipulation in an uncontested action.

Issues

Whether a trial court may refuse to hear a contempt proceeding based on its own doubts regarding the validity of a judgment signed by a court commissioner.
Whether a court commissioner has the authority to sign a judgment in an uncontested action based on a stipulation.
Whether personal service of a judgment is required to hold a party in contempt, or if knowledge of the order is sufficient.

Disposition. remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The law is well settled that a trial court is under a duty to hear and determine the merits of all matters properly before it which are within its jurisdiction and that mandate may be used to compel the performance of this duty.”

“The law does not require that a party subject to an order of the court must be personally served with a copy of that order before he may be held in contempt of it. All that the law requires is that he had knowledge of it.”

FRAMPTON, J. pro tem.

Mandate to compel respondent court to hear and determine a contempt proceeding.

On October 15, 1964, petitioner filed a complaint in the respondent court entitled “The People of the State of California, Plaintiff, v. Federal Liquidators, a corporation, Federal Enterprises, a corporation, dba Federal Claim Adjusters, Lawrence L. Stein, and Does I through V, Defendants,” number 847,471. The complaint charged violations of section 17500 of the Business and Professions Code.

[101]

The defendant, Lawrence L. Stein, hereinafter referred to as Stein, is the real party in interest in the proceedings before this court.

It appears that the plaintiff, through the Attorney General, and the defendants, through their attorney, Eugene Berchin, had prior to October 15, 1964, discussed the circumstances out of which the litigation below arose and had, on August 21, 1964, stipulated to the entry of a proposed final judgment. A judgment was then rendered on January 18, 1965. There is no question raised here that the judgment rendered was not in all respects identical to the terms and conditions contained in the proposed judgment contemplated by the stipulation. When the cause came on for hearing, being an uncontested matter, by reason of the stipulation for judgment, it was transferred to David J. Aisenson, a duly qualified and acting court commissioner, who signed the judgment. On January 21, 1965, notice of entry of judgment was sent to the attorney for the defendants through the United States mail and a similar notice was sent through the United States mail to Stein at his place of residence.

On July 13, 1965, the petitioner filed a declaration in support of an order to show cause why Stein should not be held in contempt for a willful violation of the judgment. The order to show cause was issued and was personally served upon Stein on July 19, 1965. Hearing on the order to show cause was set for August 4, 1965, and thereafter continued to September 7, 1965. On the latter date the respondent court declined to proceed with the hearing, stating as grounds for its refusal that it desired to have points and authorities submitted on the questions (1) whether the fact that the judgment was signed by a court commissioner rendered the judgment invalid and (2) whether Stein had sufficient notice of the judgment so as to be subject to the present contempt proceeding. Hearing was then continued to September 30, 1965. Points and authorities were submitted and on the latter date the trial court again stated that it was concerned over the same two questions. There ensued a colloquy between the

People v. Superior Court

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief