C.H. Reynolds Electric v. Powers CA6

Filed 8/24/21 C.H. Reynolds Electric v. Powers CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

C.H. REYNOLDS ELECTRIC, INC., H046554 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Appellant, Super. Ct. No. 17CH007422)

v.

GAVIN JOHN POWERS,

Defendant and Respondent.

Appellant C.H. Reynolds Electric, Inc. (CHRE) initiated contempt proceedings against its former employee, respondent Gavin John Powers,1 after he violated a workplace violence restraining order. On appeal, CHRE challenges the trial court’s order denying CHRE recovery of security costs from Powers and asserts they are recoverable under the governing statute, Code of Civil Procedure section 1218, subdivision (a).2 For the reasons we explain below, we affirm the order. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2017, CHRE obtained a workplace violence restraining order against Powers, who had worked as a foreman for CHRE on a construction project. After Powers later violated the 2017 restraining order, CHRE initiated contempt proceedings. In September

1 Powers has not participated in this appeal. 2 Unspecified statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.

2017, the trial court found Powers in contempt based on numerous violations of the restraining order and stayed imposition of the sentence which, by agreement of the parties, was six days in the county jail and a $1,000 fine. In July 2018, the trial court again held Powers in contempt, finding he had willfully sent texts and e-mails to parties protected by the restraining order. The trial court lifted the stay on the 2017 sentence and imposed a modified jail term of five days (instead of six) and a $1,000 fine. The trial court also imposed a 15-day jail term and a fine of $4,000 for the new contempt violations. The trial court allowed CHRE to seek attorney fees and costs under section 1218, subdivision (a) (hereafter section 1218(a)) for both contempt proceedings. CHRE filed a motion and supporting papers under section 1218(a) seeking, among other fees and costs, approximately $30,000 for private security guard expenses (hereafter security costs). CHRE argued that it had to retain armed security to protect its employees because local law enforcement and the trial court failed to act quickly and Powers’s conduct was increasingly unstable. In a declaration, CHRE’s attorney stated that “CHRE was forced to incur private security guard and emergency intercom expenses in the amount of $29,935.00 because local law enforcement and the Court did not redress the contemptuous activity in a speedy manner and it had a duty to provide its employees with a safe and secure workplace.” That declaration also attached, among other documents, supporting invoices and a 2002 federal OSHA fact sheet regarding workplace violence that detailed additional protections an employer could take to secure the workplace, including hiring security guards. The motion contended, based on certain legislative history of section 1218, the Legislature intended for “an employer prosecuting a contempt action to be ‘made whole.’ ” On November 16, 2018, following a hearing, the trial court issued the written order that is the subject of this appeal. The trial court ordered Powers to pay CHRE approximately $4,000 in various court costs and approximately $83,000 in attorney fees. 2