Rob Kolson Creative Productions, Inc. v. Scott Stander, No. 2:2018cv06789 - Document 86 (C.D. Cal. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS by Judge Virginia A. Phillips for Report and Recommendation (Issued) 83 . Having completed its review, the Court accepts the certified facts, findings and recommendations set forth in the Report. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Contempt Motion with respect to both TSG and Babos is GRANTED. (See order for full details) (efc)

Download PDF
Rob Kolson Creative Productions, Inc. v. Scott Stander Doc. 86 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ROB KOLSON CREATIVE PRODUCTIONS, INC., Plaintiff v. SCOTT STANDER, Defendant. Case No. 2:18-cv-6789-VAP (GJS) ORDER ACCEPTING CERTIFIED FACTS, FINDINGS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR A FINDING OF CIVIL CONTEMPT 17 18 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Registration of 19 Judgment from Another District [Dkt. 1], all pleadings and other documents filed in 20 this judgment debtor action, the Report and Recommendation of United States 21 Magistrate Judge (“Report”), and Non-Party The Stander Group’s (“TSG”) 22 Objections to the Report (including the declaration of counsel for both Defendant 23 and The Stander Group, Peter J. Babos) [Dkt. 84]. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 24 636(b)(1)(C) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has conducted a de novo review of 25 those portions of the Report to which objections have been stated. 26 Nothing in the Objections affects or alters the analysis and conclusions set 27 forth in the Report. Nearly all of TSG’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in 28 Support of its objections is a “Recap of Prior Legal Argument” [Dkt. 84 at 5], i.e., a Dockets.Justia.com 1 re-argument of the very same position and cases presented to the Magistrate Judge 2 concerning the issue of whether Defendant Scott Stander’s filing of personal 3 bankruptcy stays discovery or other proceedings involving third party TSG. No new 4 facts or case law are included. In fact, the “recap” appears to be a cut-and-paste 5 from TSG’s prior briefing. Having completed its review, the Court accepts the certified facts, findings 6 7 and recommendations set forth in the Report. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that 8 the Contempt Motion with respect to both TSG and Babos is GRANTED as follows: 9 (1) 10 TSG and Babos are held in contempt for failing to comply with the Court’s October 23, 2019 discovery and sanctions order; 11 (2) 12 TSG must immediately produce all of the documents requested 13 by Plaintiff and must file, within two weeks of the entry of this 14 Order, a declaration stating that TSG has complied with the 15 order or explaining any non-compliance; (3) 16 TSG and Babos (jointly and severally) must pay to Plaintiff 17 $4,227.50 in attorney’s fees, minus any payments previously 18 made, as required by the initial order; (4) 19 TSG and Babos must pay an additional $6,012.50 ($2,112.50 for 20 Plaintiff’s opening brief and $3,900.00 for the Court-ordered 21 supplemental briefing) payable to Plaintiff for further fees 22 incurred litigating the contempt motion; (5) 23 Attorney Babos’ is hereby referred to the Central District of 24 California’s Attorney Disciplinary Committee for investigation; 25 and 26 27 28 // // // // 2 1 (6) that the Clerk of the Court forward a copy of the Magistrate 2 Judge’s Report and Recommendation [Dkt. 83] and this Order to 3 the State Bar of California, Intake, 845 South Figueroa Street, 4 Los Angeles, CA 90017. 5 6 7 8 DATE: August 19, 2020 __________________________________ VIRGINIA A. PHILLIPS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.