Laguerre, et al. v. Manhattan Loft, LLC

Case No.: 22STCV11954 Matter: Motion for Order to Show Cause Re: Contempt (CCP 1209) Moving Party: Plaintiffs represented by Jacob Partiyeli Responding Party: Defendants Manhattan Loft, LLC, Erica Rivera, and Bich-Hang Pham- Le Tentative Ruling: Plaintiffs’ motion for Order to Show Cause Re: Contempt (CCP 1209) is denied.

Plaintiffs Michael Laguerre, Robert Alvin Johnson, Kerry-Ann Morrison, Joselyn Garcia, Alexander Mattera, Whitney Coss, Eric Bradley, Arman Musakhanyan, Damaris Cervantes, John Michael Triana, Jamar Hart, Natali Babiyans, Jamal Shakir, Alisa Garrett, Keith Thomas, Thomas Syrowski, Justin Goslee, Jasmyme Cannick, Giovanna Dagostino, Alex Onofre, Jennifer Bailey, Matthew Dutcher, Kevin Reeves, Jacqwel Brown, Jaida Kyi, Daniel Kirkland, Nathaniel Salgo, Devante Roper, D?Marques Riley, Mario Foster, Brandie Rossi, Boston Osborne, Samantha Bran, Paul Martignetti, Sherrtl Grant, Lam Vu, Jas Jeffress, Jean Juste (collectively “Plaintiffs”) sued their landlord, Manhattan Loft, LLC (“Manhattan Loft”) and its alleged agents, Erica Rivera and Pam Pham-Le (“Bich-Hang Pham- Le”) (collectively “Defendants”).

On December 22, 2025, the Court granted Judgment Debtor Plaintiffs Michael Laguerre, Sherryl Grant, and Alexander Mattera’s motion for a court order for the release and full satisfaction of settlement funds pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 708.440. Plaintiffs move to hold Defense Counsel Remy Obas (“Counsel”) in contempt for not complying with the December 22, 2025, Court order. Defendants oppose.

Legal Standard

Civil contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature (Code Civ. Proc., § 1218; Rickley v. Goodfriend (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 1528, 1537 (Rickley)) and, as such, each element of the contempt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. (In re Coleman (1974) 12 Cal.3d 568, 572.)

A party adjudicated in contempt “may? (discretionary) be ordered to pay the charging party’s reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in connection with the contempt proceeding. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1218, subd. (a); Rickley, supra, 207 Cal.App.4th at p. 1537 [twofold purpose behind Code of Civil Procedure section 1218 fees and cost awards is to encourage enforcement of contempt violations and compliance with court orders]; Goold v. Superior Court (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 1, 10.)

In indirect contempt proceedings based on disobedience of a prior court order, a valid judgment must meet “strict requirements.” Each of the following must be established: (1) the rendition of a valid court order; (2) actual knowledge of the order; (3) ability to comply; and (4) willful disobedience of the order. (Conn v. Superior Court (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 774, 784.)

Analysis

Plaintiffs move for: (1) the Court to schedule an Order to Show Cause why Counsel should not be held in contempt; (2) the Court to schedule an Order to Show Cause why Counsel should not be jailed and sanctioned; (3) request for sanctions and attorney’s fees; and (4) for Counsel to be jailed for five days.

“Disobedience of any lawful judgment, order, or process of the court’ constitutes contempt. (Code Civ. Proc., §1209, subd. (a)(5).) “A valid judgment of contempt must meet strict requirements and must show facts essential to establish jurisdiction for the making of the order, the defendant's knowledge of the order, his ability to comply, and his willful disobedience.” (In re Jones (1975) 47 Cal.App.3d 879, 881.)

Plaintiffs argue that a Court order was issued and that Counsel was aware of it. (Mot., 12:5-19.) However, Plaintiff failed to present facts that Counsel was able to comply with the Court order, and that he willfully defied the Court order. The declaration submitted by Plaintiffs is conclusory and lacks facts to support that Counsel was able to comply, and willfully failed to comply. (Partiyeli Decl., ¶ 6.)

The evidence before the Court depicts the contrary. An email exchange between Counsel, Judgment Debtor 1200 Management (“Judgment Debtor”), and Plaintiff’s counsel occurred on December 22, 2025, the same day as the hearing. (Obas Decl., Ex. A.) Judgment Debtor and Plaintiffs asserted that they were considering appealing the December 22, 2026, Court Order. (Ibid.)

On the same day, Counsel emailed Plaintiff’s counsel to inform him that the “insurance carriers will not be able to issue settlement payments until the appeal question is resolved.” (Id. at Ex. B.) Counsel even asked Plaintiffs whether they would waive their right to appeal, and also inquired of Judgment Debtor. (Ibid.) Counsel also affirms that at the time of this email exchange, Counsel did not have the funds. (Obas Decl., ¶ 10.)

Rather, it was Plaintiff’s counsel who was not complying with the inquiry regarding Plaintiffs’ right to appeal; Plaintiff’s counsel threatened to sue Counsel’s client for breach of contract. (Id. at Ex. C.)

On January 23, 2026, Counsel informed Plaintiff’s counsel that Judgment Debtor agreed to waive its right to an appeal, and asked Plaintiff’s counsel if they agreed as well, so that proposed settlement agreements could be sent. (Id. at Ex. D.) Instead of declining to waive Plaintiffs’ right to an appeal, Plaintiffs’ counsel asserted that he was filing the present motion. (Id. at Ex. E.)

Plaintiffs have not presented sufficient evidence to support their claims that Counsel engaged in conduct that warrants him to be held in contempt. The Court will not address the separate requests in the present motion because they depend on the fact that Counsel was in contempt.

Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to: (1) request that the Court to schedule an Order to Show Cause why Counsel should not be held in contempt; (2) request that the Court to schedule an Order to Show Cause why Counsel should not be jailed and sanctioned; (3) request for sanctions and attorney’s fees; and (4) for Counsel to be jailed for five days.

Conclusion

Plaintiffs’ motion for Order to Show Cause Re: Contempt (CCP 1209) is denied.

Case Number: 24STCV12815 Hearing Date: May 18, 2026 Dept: 516 Judge James I. Montgomery Department 516 Hearing Date: May 18, 2026 Case Name: Sanders v. Spiritual Pink, et al.