Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-00583/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-00583-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

DANIEL CASTAGNOLA,

Defendant.

Case No. 18-cv-00583-SVK 

ORDER RE: AUGUST 22, 2019 ORDER 

TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

Re: Dkt. No. 53

On August 6, 2019, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause directing Defendant Daniel 

Castagnola (“Castagnola”) and Defendant’s counsel, Michael Welch (“Mr. Welch”), to appear 

before the Court on August 22, 2019, and show cause, if any, why they should not be held in civil 

contempt for failure to comply with this Court’s orders of June 17, 2019, and July 24, 2019, and 

pay sanctions. Dkt. 53. The Court ORDERS as follows. 

I. BACKGROUND

In this civil action, Plaintiff filed a complaint on January 26, 2018, alleging claims under 

the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”). 

Dkt. 1. On December 10, 2018, the Court granted Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for summary 

judgment and awarded Plaintiff $4,000 in statutory damages. Dkt. 32; Dkt. 33. The Court also 

awarded Plaintiff $5,705 in fees and $149.25 in costs. Dkt. 39. 

At Plaintiff’s request, on March 27, 2019, this Court issued an Order directing Defendant 

Daniel Castagnola (“Castagnola”) to appear in this Court on April 23, 2019, at 9:30 a.m. for a 

judgment debtor exam. Dkt. 42. After Plaintiff failed to timely serve the Court’s March 27, 2019,

Order on Plaintiff, the Court granted Plaintiff’s unopposed request to continue the judgment 

debtor exam to July 23, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. Dkt. 46 (“June 17, 2019 Order”). The docket 

indicates that both Orders were personally served on Castagnola on July 5, 2019. Dkt. 47. On 

Case 5:18-cv-00583-SVK Document 62 Filed 08/29/19 Page 1 of 5
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

July 23, 2019, Plaintiff’s counsel appeared for the judgment debtor exam. However, both 

Castagnola and his counsel, Michael Welch (“Mr. Welch”), failed to appear as ordered. Dkt. 48. 

The California Code of Civil Procedure authorizes courts to hold an individual who fails to 

appear for a judgment debtor examination in contempt, issue a warrant for her arrest and award 

reasonable attorney’s fees to the judgment creditor. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 708.170. Based 

on Castagnola’s and Mr. Welch’s failures to appear for the July 23, 2019 judgment debtor exam, 

the Court issued an Order to show cause regarding civil sanctions only as to Castagnola on 

July 24, 2019 (“July 24, 2019 Order”). Dkt. 49. On July 31, 2019, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a 

declaration in support of a request for monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,106.00 for expenses

incurred in preparation for the July 23, 2019 judgment debtor examination. Dkt. 50. Plaintiff’s 

counsel also averred that while Mr. Welch had been served with the July 24, 2019 Order, 

Castagnola had not been served, despite numerous attempts to do so at his place of business. Id. 

Because Plaintiff was unable to serve Castagnola with the Court’s July 24, 2019 Order to 

show cause, the Court held a status conference on August 6, 2019. Both counsel for Plaintiff and 

Mr. Welch appeared. Castagnola did not appear. Mr. Welch indicated that he no longer 

represented Castagnola in this matter. The Court noted that Mr. Welch remained counsel of 

record. The Court issued an Order on August 6, 2019 directing Castagnola and Mr. Welch to 

appear before the Court on August 22, 2019 to show cause, if any, as to why they should not be:

(1) held in civil contempt for failing to comply with this Court’s June 17, 2019 Order and the July 

24, 2019 Order, and (2) ordered to pay sanctions. Dkt. 53. The Court directed Plaintiff to file a 

supplemental declaration regarding Plaintiff’s attempts to serve Castagnola with the Court’s July 

24, 2019 and August 6, 2019 Orders. Id. Plaintiff was also permitted to file a supplemental 

declaration regarding any additional fees and costs incurred. Id. The Court specifically warned

Castagnola and Mr. Welch that their failures to appear at the August 22, 2019 hearing would result 

in civil contempt sanctions of $2,100.00 at a minimum and $5,000.00 at a maximum. Id.

On August 19, 2019, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a supplemental declaration in support of a 

request for additional monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,908.00. Dkt. 56. Plaintiff’s counsel 

averred that the additional monetary sanctions were the fees incurred in attempting to serve 

Case 5:18-cv-00583-SVK Document 62 Filed 08/29/19 Page 2 of 5
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Castagnola. Id. Plaintiff’s counsel outlined his numerous attempts to serve Castagnola with this 

Court’s July 24, 2019 and August 6, 2019 Orders. Id. On August 20, 2019, Mr. Welch filed a 

Motion to Withdraw as Castagnola’s Counsel. Dkt. 57. In the motion, Mr. Welch stated that he 

has not been in contact with Castagnola, despite his “repeated efforts” over the past year. Id. On 

August 21, 2019, this Court issued an Order taking Defense counsel’s Motion to Withdraw under 

submission and ordering the August 22, 2019 hearing to proceed as scheduled. Dkt. 58. At the 

August 22, 2019 hearing, only Plaintiff’s counsel appeared. The Court has not yet ruled on the 

Motion to Withdraw. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

“[C]ourts have inherent power to enforce compliance with their lawful orders through civil 

contempt.” Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364, 370 (1966). This power extends to 

magistrate judges presiding over civil consent cases. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(e)(4) (“In any case in 

which a United States magistrate judge presides with the consent of the parties . . . the magistrate 

judge may exercise the civil contempt authority of the district court.”). To establish civil 

contempt, “[t]he moving party has the burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that 

the contemnors violated a specific and definite order of the court.” F.T.C. v. Affordable Media, 

179 F.3d 1228, 1239 (9th Cir. 1999) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). A violation 

is generally shown by a party’s “failure to take all reasonable steps within the party’s power to 

comply.” Reno Air Racing Ass’n., Inc. v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1130 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation 

and internal quotation marks omitted). Contemnors then have the burden “to demonstrate why 

they were unable to comply.” F.T.C., 179 F.3d at 1239. The contemnor’s actions need not be 

willful. Reno Air Racing, 452 F.3d at 1126, 1130. A contemnor may, however, assert a defense 

based on an “inability to comply with [the] judicial order.” F.T.C., 179 F.3d at 1239. Finally, “[a] 

civil contempt proceeding is considered a ‘trial’ within the meaning of Rule 43(a), which means

that oral testimony is required.” Id. (citing Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., 708 F.2d 

492, 495 (9th Cir.1983)). 

Should a court find a party in contempt, it has discretion in deciding whether to impose 

sanctions. “Sanctions for civil contempt may be imposed to coerce obedience to a court order, or 

Case 5:18-cv-00583-SVK Document 62 Filed 08/29/19 Page 3 of 5
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

to compensate the party pursuing the contempt action for injuries resulting from the contemptuous 

behavior, or both.” General Signal Corp. v. Donallco, Inc., 787 F.2d 1376, 1379 (9th Cir.1986). 

In fashioning civil contempt sanctions, the court has the discretion to award reasonable fees and 

costs as a remedial measure, regardless of whether the party that is in contempt acted willfully. 

Perry v. O'Donnell, 759 F.2d 702, 704–705 (9th Cir.1985). Contempt sanctions may be awarded 

to the prevailing party. Ahearn ex rel. N.L.R.B v. Int’l Longshore and Warehouse Union, 721 F.3d 

112 (9th Cir. 2013) (“The key is that contempt sanctions are available as compensation when they 

are awarded to the prevailing party in the litigation.”). 

III. ANALYSIS

Here, it is undisputed that Castagnola and Mr. Welch disobeyed multiple specific and 

definite court orders. The Court’s August 6, 2019 Order required Castagnola and Mr. Welch to 

appear before the Court on August 22, 2019 to show cause as to why they should not be found in 

civil contempt and why Plaintiff should not be awarded sanctions. Dkt. 53. The Court 

specifically cautioned Castagnola and Mr. Welch that failure to appear at the show cause hearing

would result in a finding of civil contempt and/or sanctions. Id. The only response to the Court’s 

August 6, 2019 Order was a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel filed by Mr. Welch two days before 

the show cause hearing was to be conducted. Dkt. 57. Beyond the sole Motion to Withdraw as 

Counsel, neither Castagnola nor Mr. Welch offered any explanation as to why they were not able 

to comply with the June 17, 2019 Order or the July 24, 2019 Order. In addition, neither 

Castagnola nor Mr. Welch adhered to the Court’s August 6, 2019 Order, as they both failed to 

appear before the Court on August 22, 2019. Although Mr. Welch filed a Motion to Withdraw as 

Counsel and cited, among other reasons, an inability to contact Castagnola, Mr. Welch was still 

the counsel of record and was required to appear at the show cause hearing. The Court concludes 

that Castagnola violated the Court’s June 17, 2019 Order, the July 24, 2019 Order, and the August 

6, 2019 Order. The Court further concludes that Mr. Welch violated the Court’s August 6, 2019 

Order. 

Accordingly, in an effort to deter further disregard for this Court’s Orders, the Court 

hereby holds Castagnola in civil contempt and sanctions him in the amount of $3,500.00. 

Case 5:18-cv-00583-SVK Document 62 Filed 08/29/19 Page 4 of 5
5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Furthermore, the Court sanctions Mr. Welch in the amount of $500.00 for his failure to follow the 

Court’s August 6, 2019 Order. 

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS the following:

1. Castagnola is in civil contempt of this Court for his failure to comply with: (1) this 

Court’s June 17, 2019 Order directing him to appear for a judgment debtor exam; 

(2) this Court’s July 24, 2019 Order directing him to show cause as to why he 

should not be found in civil contempt; and (3) this Court’s August 6, 2019 Order 

directing him to show cause as to why he should not be found in civil contempt. 

Castagnola is SANCTIONED in the amount of $3500.00, payable to Plaintiff’s

Counsel Jonathan S. Larsen.

2. Mr. Welch of Michael Welch & Associates is SANCTIONED in the amount of

$500.00 for his failure to follow this Court’s August 6, 2019 Order, payable to 

Plaintiff’s Counsel Jonathan S. Larsen.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 29, 2019

SUSAN VAN KEULEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:18-cv-00583-SVK Document 62 Filed 08/29/19 Page 5 of 5