DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
24NWCV00256·la·Civil·Discovery Dispute
Hearing todayDENIED

DYNAPRO, INC., et al. v. CGM INTERMODAL SHIPPERS INC., et al.

Ex Parte Application for Order to Show Cause re Contempt

Hearing date
Aug 31, 2026
Department
C
Judge
Prevailing
Defendant
Next hearing
Oct 2, 2026

Motion type

Browse all Ex Parte Application rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$10,600

Parties

PlaintiffDynapro, Inc.
PlaintiffMario Scaturchio
PlaintiffJoseph Scaturchio
DefendantCGM Intermodal Shippers, Inc.
DefendantPaola Mata
DefendantEddie Gomez

Ruling

"sexual activity between correctional officers and inmates in detention facilities 'is analogous to statutory rape ... . Both types of offenses--statutory rape and sex between a correctional employee and a detained person--arguably are rooted in a policy aimed at an imbalance of power between the parties so significant as to vitiate any purported consent.'" (People v. Bojorquez (2010) 183 Cal.App.4 th 407, 420.) These concerns apply with equal force in the civil trial. Accordingly, the Court's ruling in Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 3 STANDS for the reasons set forth above. Defendants' request for reconsideration of Plaintiff's Motions in Limine Nos. One, Two and Three is DENIED.

vs CGM INTERMODAL SHIPPERS INC., et al., Case No. 24NWCV00256 Plaintiffs Dynapro, Inc., Mario Scaturchio, and Joseph Scaturchio apply ex parte for the issuance of an Order to Show Cause directing Defendants CGM Intermodal Shippers, Inc., Paola Mata, and Eddie Gomez (aka Edward Gomez) to appear and show cause why they should not be adjudged in contempt for violating the Court's March 20, 2026, Order.

On March 20, 2026, upon motion by Plaintiffs, the Court appointed the Honorable Chad W. Firetag (Ret.) to serve as a discovery referee pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sec.638 to hear and determine all discovery disputes arising out of the Court's October 2025 discovery orders, including disputes concerning the production of CGM's financial records, bank statements, and QuickBooks files, data, and records. (3/20/26 Minute Order, P.1.) The costs and fees of the Discovery Referee shall be shared equally by the parties, unless otherwise ordered by the Court. (Id., P.4.) Within thirty (30) days of the Order, CGM shall provide to the Discovery Referee a complete native copy of its QuickBooks data on a flash drive or USB drive (id., P.5) and a complete copy of its bank statements for the period of January 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024, for purposes of in camera review (Id., P.6).

In this ex parte application, Plaintiffs contend that Defendants have refused to pay their court-ordered share of the Discovery Referee's $10,600 supplemental retainer. (Ferris Decl., P.26.) Defendants told the Discovery Referee that Eddie Gomez cannot pay the supplemental retainer fee, so they will either ask Plaintiffs to cover the entire fee or seek Court Intervention for the Referee to be relieved. (Discovery Referee Report No. 2.) Plaintiffs decline to pay the entire fee, and no request to modify the Court's March 20 Order has been filed by Defendants.

Plaintiffs' request for the issuance of an Order to Show Cause re Contempt is DENIED. In the alternative, Defendants are Ordered to Show Cause on October 2, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. SE-C why sanctions should not be imposed under CCP Sec.177.5 for failure to pay their one-half share of the Discovery Referee's supplemental fee.

Additionally, the Court sets an evidentiary hearing re Defendants' present ability to pay their one-half their share of the supplemental fee for October 2, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. SE-C. Defendants Paola Mata and Eddie Gomez are ordered to appear in person.

Furthermore, Defendants CGM Intermodal Shippers, Inc., Paola Mata, and Eddie Gomez (aka Edward Gomez) are ordered to file and serve financial documentation establishing their separate ability or inability to pay Defendants' collective one-half share of the supplemental fee by September 17, 2026. Defendants may file the documentation under seal, but Plaintiffs shall be provided complete copies. Plaintiffs may file a response by

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share