An opposition to an order to show cause for civil contempt in California is the topic of this blog post.
The opposition to an order to show cause for civil contempt in California must be filed and served at least nine (9) Court days before the hearing unless the court has ordered otherwise. The opposition should be served by personal service, overnight mail or a courier service that provides overnight delivery pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1005.
If you have been served with an order to show cause for civil contempt in California in California you need to carefully review the motion and supporting documents to determine if the charging party has met their burden.
Grounds for opposition to an order to show cause for civil contempt in California.
Common grounds for an opposition to an order to show cause for civil contempt in California include the grounds that:
(1) the opposing party has not willfully violated the terms of any Court orders;
(2) the party charging them with contempt has failed to meet their burden of proving their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in that they have failed to submit competent evidence that would support a finding that they willfully violated the TRO, which is an essential element of a finding of contempt.
An opposition to an order to show cause for civil contempt in California should also request that the Court hold a full and fair evidentiary hearing in which the accused is allowed to confront and cross-examine all witnesses against them.
The California Supreme Court has stated in a published decision that the accused is entitled for a hearing on the issues raised by the charging party as the affidavits in support of the order to show cause for contempt are insufficient as evidence to sustain a contempt conviction under the hearsay rule.
A recently published decision from a California Court of Appeal stated that a civil contempt proceeding is of a criminal nature even though it can be used to impose punishment for violation of orders made in a civil action.
Another California Court of Appeal stated in a published decision that 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:
Facts establishing court’s jurisdiction (e.g., personal service or subpoena, validity of court order allegedly violated, etc.);
Defendant’s knowledge of the order disobeyed;
Defendant’s ability to comply; and
Defendant’s willful disobedience of the order.
The law is settled in California that in order to support a conviction for contempt each and every element of the contempt must be established beyond a reasonable doubt as a preponderance of evidence is not sufficient.
Sample opposition to an order to show cause for civil contempt in California for sale.
Attorneys or parties in California that would like to view a portion of a sample 10 page opposition to an order to show cause for civil contempt in California containing brief instructions, a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law and statutory authority, sample declaration and proof of service sold by the author can see below.
Over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation for sale.
To view more information on over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation visit: https://legaldocspro.myshopify.com/products
The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is a retired litigation paralegal that worked in California and Federal litigation from January 1995 through September 2017 and has created over 300 sample legal documents for sale.
Do you want to use this article on your website, blog or e-zine? You can, as long as you include this blurb with it: “Stan Burman is the author of over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation and is the author of a free weekly legal newsletter. You can receive 10 free gifts just for subscribing. Just visit http://freeweeklylegalnewsletter.gr8.com/ for more information.
Follow Stan Burman on Google Plus at:
Please note that the author of this blog post, Stan Burman is NOT an attorney and as such is unable to provide any specific legal advice. The author is NOT engaged in providing any legal, financial, or other professional services, and any information contained in this blog post is NOT intended to constitute legal advice.
The materials and information contained in this blog post have been prepared by Stan Burman for informational purposes only and are not legal advice. Transmission of the information contained in this blog post is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, any business relationship between the author and any readers. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.