Court Opinion

ID: 9892966
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-25 17:03:52.236953+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:50:53.065975
License: Public Domain

Filed 10/25/23 Messick v. Shaulis CA3
                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                      THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                                         (Yuba)
                                                            ----

 KELLY ANNA MESSICK,

                    Plaintiff and Appellant,                                                   C096822

           v.                                                                       (Super. Ct. No. FLSQ20-
                                                                                             00599)
 MATTHEW WILLIAM SHAULIS,
                                                                                     ORDER MODIFYING
                    Defendant and Respondent.                                            OPINION

                                                                                        [NO CHANGE IN
                                                                                          JUDGMENT]

THE COURT:

         It is ordered that the opinion filed in this case on October 18, 2023, be modified
as follows:

On page 8, footnote one, first sentence, delete “writ petition” and replace with “appeal”
so that the first sentence now reads:

       In addition, mother sought dismissal of the Yuba action while her appeal in
this Court was pending in case No. C094413.

                                                             1
       This modification does not change the judgment.

FOR THE COURT:

    /S/
HULL, Acting P. J.

   /S/
MAURO, J.

   /S/
HORST, J.*

* Judge of the Placer County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant
to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

                                              2
Filed 10/18/23 Messick v. Shaulis CA3 (unmodified opinion)
                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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
                                      THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                                         (Yuba)
                                                            ----

 KELLY ANNA MESSICK,

                    Plaintiff and Appellant,                                                   C096822

           v.                                                                       (Super. Ct. No. FLSQ20-
                                                                                             00599)
 MATTHEW WILLIAM SHAULIS,

                    Defendant and Respondent.

         Kelly Anna Messick (mother) and Matthew Shaulis (father) have a son (the child)
who was born in Ohio. Father and mother were not married. Mother left Ohio with the
child and moved to California. Mother filed an action in Yuba County Superior Court
seeking sole legal and physical custody of the child and visitation for father. But then
mother moved to San Diego, took the position that the Yuba court lacked jurisdiction
over the matter, repeatedly sought dismissal of the Yuba action, and did not comply with
court orders.

                                                             1
       The Yuba court found the following: that father and mother are the biological and
legal parents of the child, mother demonstrated an active interest in undermining father’s
parental relationship with the child, she willfully disobeyed prior court orders, she
refused to facilitate visitation for father, and she refused to identify her location. The
Yuba court awarded sole legal and physical custody of the child to father. It also ordered
mother to reimburse father $932.42 for expenses incurred in relation to the court’s turn-
over order. At a subsequent hearing, the Yuba court found that the location of the child
was unknown, mother made substantial efforts to frustrate resolution of the Yuba action,
and father incurred additional expenses in the Yuba action as a result of mother’s
conduct. It imposed sanctions totaling $49,491 against mother. It found mother had
financial ability to pay the sanctions based on evidence that she was employable and had
assets. The Yuba court entered judgment from which mother now appeals.
       Mother challenges the Yuba court’s jurisdiction to enter orders in the Yuba action.
She unsuccessfully asserted the same contention in previous petitions for writ of mandate
or prohibition filed in this court. She argues the Yuba court (1) lacked jurisdiction to
issue orders after she submitted a request for dismissal, and (2) erred in imposing
sanctions against her pursuant to Family Code section 271.
       Finding no merit in her contentions, we will affirm the judgment.
                                       BACKGROUND
       In 2020, father initiated an action in Ohio to establish paternity of the child and for
custody or a shared parenting plan. We will refer to that proceeding as the Ohio action
and to that court as the Ohio court.
       Mother filed her petition in Yuba County two months later. She sought sole legal
and physical custody of the child and visitation for father. She filed papers in the Ohio
and Yuba courts seeking dismissal of the Ohio action and the exercise of jurisdiction in
the Yuba action. Father opposed jurisdiction in California. The Yuba court stayed the
Yuba action until the Ohio court decided whether it would exercise jurisdiction.

                                              2
       On June 25, 2021, in case No. C094413, mother appealed the Yuba court’s order
staying the Yuba action and denying mother’s motion to set aside that order. That appeal
was dismissed as moot.
       Meanwhile, in September 2021, the Ohio court determined that California was the
child’s home state at the time father filed the Ohio complaint and the matter should
proceed in California. It granted father’s application to voluntarily withdraw his Ohio
complaint without prejudice.
       On November 5, 2021, mother sought to dismiss her petition in the Yuba court by
attempting to file a request for dismissal without prejudice. The Yuba court clerk
declined to file the request. However, mother was able to file a request for order of
dismissal three days later. That same day, father filed a response to mother’s petition and
opposed mother’s request for order of dismissal, but asked the Yuba court to order the
matter to proceed in Ohio if it granted mother’s dismissal request. Mother argued
dismissal should have been entered when she presented her prior request on November 5,
2021, because at that point father had not yet appeared in the case.
       The Yuba court heard mother’s dismissal request on December 22, 2021. Based
on the Ohio court’s order, the Yuba court lifted the stay in the Yuba action and ruled that
California had jurisdiction over the issue of custody and visitation. It denied mother’s
request for dismissal because (1) a stay was in place when mother sought dismissal, (2) to
the extent mother’s request for dismissal was based on father’s failure to file a response
to her petition, father was not required to file a response during the stay but filed one
anyway, and (3) the request for dismissal otherwise lacked specificity. The Yuba court
granted father supervised visitation and referred the matter to mediation.
       On January 5, 2022, mother filed a petition for writ of mandate in this Court in
case No. C095511, challenging the Yuba court’s denial of her requests to dismiss the
Yuba petition and seeking a writ directing the Yuba court to dismiss the Yuba action

                                              3
effective November 5, 2021, and to vacate any orders made after that date. This Court
denied the petition.
         Less than a month later, on January 31, 2022, mother filed another writ petition in
this Court (case No. C095598) asserting the same contentions and seeking the same relief
as her previous writ petition. This Court denied the petition.
         During a Zoom hearing in the Yuba case, the Yuba court noted that mother had
failed to comply with its orders regarding preparation for supervised visitation and again
ordered her to make such arrangements. It also ordered mother to complete mediation.
Mother insisted her petition had been effectively dismissed on November 5, 2021. When
counsel for father expressed concern that mother may have moved, the Yuba court asked
mother where she lived. Mother did not answer and disconnected from Zoom.
         Father requested an emergency order that mother produce the child, give the
child’s address, and contact Ardent Family Services to prepare for supervised visitation.
Mother opposed the request, once again arguing the Yuba court lost jurisdiction when she
sought to dismiss her petition. Following a hearing at which mother did not appear, the
Yuba court issued an order requiring mother to appear in person at a subsequent hearing,
to produce the child, and to provide her current address and contact information. Mother
filed a request to continue the subsequent hearing, stating she had new counsel, she had
not lived in Yuba County since 2021, and her attorney would file a new action in San
Diego.
         Mother’s new counsel appeared at the continued hearing. The Yuba court again
ordered mother to set a mediation date. It granted father temporary physical custody of
the child and ordered supervised visitation for mother. Mother was ordered to contact
Ardent Family Services to arrange visitation and to produce the child at the San Diego
Police Department on March 5, 2022.
         Mother did not turn over the child to father in San Diego. Consequently, father
sought a bench warrant and an order to retrieve the child. The Yuba court granted the

                                              4
request. Mother failed to comply with other court orders and the Yuba court sanctioned
her and issued a citation for her to appear. When mother did not appear, the Yuba court
ordered a bench warrant.
       On April 7, 2022, father notified the Yuba court that mother filed a petition for
custody and support of the child in San Diego County on March 28, 2022.
       On April 12, 2022, mother filed another writ petition in this Court (case No.
C096009) reasserting her contention that the Yuba court lacked jurisdiction to issue
orders after mother sought to voluntarily dismiss her petition before father appeared in
the action. Mother sought a writ directing the Yuba court to vacate its March 4, 10,
and 22, 2022 orders and to dismiss the Yuba action. This Court denied the petition.
       On June 6, 2022, mother filed in the Yuba court another request for order to
dismiss the action effective November 5, 2021. The Yuba court denied the request on the
grounds that it had previously ruled on the same request and if the request was a motion
for reconsideration, it was untimely.
       Mother did not appear at an evidentiary hearing on her Yuba petition. The Yuba
court found mother had been given notice of the hearing, and it made the following
factual findings after hearing testimony from witnesses: that father and mother were the
biological and legal parents of the child; mother had a deliberate plan to abscond with the
child from the child’s residence in Ohio and demonstrated an active interest in
undermining father’s parental relationship with the child; mother willfully disobeyed
prior court orders; she refused to facilitate visitation for father despite court orders; and
she refused to provide her location information.
       The Yuba court concluded it had jurisdiction to make child custody orders under
the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) (Fam. Code,
§ 3400 et seq), the statute that governed subject matter jurisdiction in custody disputes
involving multiple jurisdictions. (A.M. v. Superior Court (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 343,
350.) It denied mother’s request for custody and visitation because she did not present

                                               5
supporting evidence, and it awarded sole legal and physical custody of the child to father.
It ordered mother to transfer the child to father immediately. It also ordered mother to
reimburse father $932.42 for expenses incurred in connection with the court’s turn-over
order. And it set a further evidentiary hearing for father’s request for Family Code
section 271 sanctions against mother.
       The Yuba court heard further testimony at the next hearing. It found that the
location of the child was unknown, mother made substantial efforts to frustrate resolution
of the Yuba action, and father incurred additional expenses as a result of mother’s
conduct. It imposed sanctions totaling $49,491 against mother. It found mother had
financial ability to pay the sanctions based on evidence that she was employable and had
assets. The Yuba court entered judgment from which mother now appeals.
                                        DISCUSSION
                                              I
       Mother contends the Yuba court should have dismissed the Yuba petition upon
mother’s request and the Yuba court lacked jurisdiction to issue any orders after she
submitted her request for dismissal.
       An action may be dismissed with or without prejudice upon the petitioner’s filing
of a written request with the court clerk or by oral or written request to the court at any
time before the actual commencement of trial, upon payment of the costs for entering the
order, if any. (Code Civ. Proc., § 581, subd. (b)(1); Hopkins v. Superior Court (1902)
136 Cal. 552, 553.) However, a petitioner’s right to dismiss is not absolute. (Curtin
Maritime Corp. v. Pacific Dredge & Construction, LLC (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 651, 665
(Curtin).)
       A court has inherent authority, in its discretion, to stay proceedings when a stay
will accommodate the ends of justice. (OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho (2019) 8 Cal.5th 111, 141;
accord Daly v. San Bernardino County Bd. of Supervisors (2021) 11 Cal.5th 1030, 1039;
Thomson v. Continental Ins. Co. (1967) 66 Cal.2d 738, 746; St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins.

                                              6
Co. v. AmerisourceBergen Corp. (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 1, 13-14; see Simmons v.
Superior Court (1950) 96 Cal.App.2d 119, 122-131.) The Yuba court stayed the Yuba
action on February 11, 2021. The stay was not lifted until December 22, 2021. Mother
could not dismiss her action during the pendency of the stay.
       Courts have also recognized limitations on a petitioner’s right to dismiss when the
petitioner is not the only party in interest on his or her side. (See, e.g., Malibu Outrigger
Bd. of Governors v. Superior Court (1980) 103 Cal.App.3d 573, 579 [class action];
Ensher v. Ensher, Alexander & Barsoom, Inc. (1960) 187 Cal.App.2d 407, 410
[shareholder derivative lawsuit]; Wilson v. Frakes (1960) 178 Cal.App.2d 580, 584
[after the trial court ordered an individual be made a defendant as an indispensable party
to the action]; Ford v. Superior Court (1959) 171 Cal.App.2d 228, 230-231 (Ford)
[child custody]; In re Estate of Raymond (1940) 38 Cal.App.2d 305, 308 [probate of
will]; 6 Witkin, Cal. Proc. (6th ed. 2021) Proceedings Without Trial § 337, pp. 834-835.)
       Ford had circumstances somewhat similar to this case. A father filed an action for
sole custody of a child. (Ford, supra, 171 Cal.App.2d at p. 229.) After the mother
demurred and filed other motions, the father left the country with the child and filed a
request for dismissal. (Id. at p. 230.) The court clerk entered dismissal and the mother
moved to vacate it. (Ibid.) The appellate court said the controlling factor was the welfare
of the child. (Ibid.) When the action was initiated the child was brought under the
protection of the court. (Id. at pp. 230-231.) The father could not dismiss the action
without the trial court’s consent; the right to dismiss under Code of Civil Procedure
section 581 did not apply. (Ford, at pp. 230-231.)
       The holding in Ford is consistent with the policy of this state to protect the health,
safety, and welfare of children when making custody and visitation orders, to ensure that
children have continuing contact with both parents unless the contact would not be in the
best interests of the child, and to encourage parents to share the rights and responsibilities
of child rearing. (Fam. Code, § 3020.)

                                              7
       Mother argues the UCCJEA rendered Ford irrelevant. But Ford did not involve a
question of competing jurisdiction and mother has not established there was no
jurisdiction in Ford or in this case. Cardiff Equities, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008)
166 Cal.App.4th 1541, on which mother relies, is distinguishable. (Id. at pp. 1544-1545
[breach of partnership agreement and guaranty].)1
                                             II
       Mother further argues the Yuba court erred in issuing sanctions against her under
Family Code section 271.
       Family Code section 271 “authorizes an award of attorney fees and costs as a
sanction for uncooperative conduct that frustrates settlement and increases litigation
costs.” (In re Marriage of Fong (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 278, 290; accord In re Marriage
of Tharp (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1295, 1317.) We review an award of sanctions under
Family Code section 271 for abuse of discretion and review the trial court’s factual
findings under the substantial evidence standard. (In re Marriage of Fong, at p. 291; In
re Marriage of Sorge (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 626, 653.) We must view the evidence in a
light most favorable to the trial court’s order and indulge all reasonable inferences to
affirm the order. (In re Marriage of Sorge, at p. 652.) We will overrule the trial court’s
order only if no judge could reasonably make the order. (Ibid.)

1 In addition, mother sought dismissal of the Yuba action while her writ petition in
this Court was pending in case No. C094413. A trial court generally lacks jurisdiction
to dismiss an action while an appeal is pending where dismissal would impact the
effectiveness of the appeal. (Code Civ. Proc., § 916, subd. (a); Curtin, supra,
76 Cal.App.5th at p. 665; Animal Film, LLC v. D.E.J. Productions, Inc. (2011)
193 Cal.App.4th 466, 476, fn. 3; Bailey v. Superior Court (1932) 125 Cal.App. 748, 750-
751; but see, e.g., Code Civ. Proc. § 917.7 [the automatic stay does not apply to a custody
and visitation order although a trial court may in its discretion stay execution of such
provisions]; Bain v. Superior Court (1974) 36 Cal.App.3d 804, 807-808 [the automatic
stay does not affect the trial court’s power to order or modify temporary spousal or child
support].)

                                              8
       Mother contends the Yuba court had no jurisdiction to issue sanctions because
the case was dismissed. We reject this contention for reasons we have explained.
Mother also argues the sanctions order was an abuse of discretion because she did not
frustrate settlement. We conclude the Yuba court did not abuse its discretion. Mother
failed to appear at status conferences and hearings. She repeatedly failed to comply with
court orders. She refused to provide information about the child’s location and
disconnected from Zoom during a hearing. This Court repeatedly denied her writ
petitions but mother continued to assert the same unsuccessful position in the Yuba
action. (See Bucur v. Ahmad (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 175, 191 [a new filing on the same
facts to evade a prior ruling may constitute sanctionable conduct]; Say & Say v.
Castellano (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 88, 93 [repeated filings to thwart a court’s proper
exercise of jurisdiction was sanctionable conduct]; Papadakis v. Zelis (1992)
8 Cal.App.4th 1146, 1148-1149.)
       In addition, mother claims there was no evidence of her ability to pay the
sanctions. It is true that in awarding sanctions under Family Code section 271, the trial
court shall consider evidence of the parties’ income, assets, and liabilities, and shall not
impose a sanction that imposes an unreasonable financial burden on a party. (Fam. Code,
§ 271, subd. (a).) Here, however, the Yuba court found that mother was employable, had
assets, and thus had the financial ability to pay the sanctions. Substantial evidence
supports that finding. Father testified that mother had worked full time in 2018
transcribing depositions. Mother’s grandmother testified that mother held a property
management position in 2020. Mother sold a travel trailer in 2021 and bought a car after
moving to California. She was the successor trustee and a beneficiary of a trust that sold
real property for $315,000 in June 2022. As for father, there was evidence that he
worked as a pilot. He filed an income and expense declaration. Mother has not
established trial court error or abuse of discretion.

                                               9
                                       DISPOSITION
       The judgment is affirmed. Father shall recover his costs on appeal.

                                                      /S/
                                                   MAURO, J.

We concur:

    /S/
HULL, Acting P. J.

    /S/
HORST, J.*

* Judge of the Placer County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant
to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

                                              10