A federal court in California granted in part a franchisee’s motion to enforce a temporary restraining order (TRO) and ordered a defendant franchisor to show cause why it should not be held in civil contempt for failing to release $406,958 in reservation proceeds. Camarillo Hosp. LLC v. G6 Hosp. LLC, 2026 WL 1113871 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2026).
Camarillo Hospitality sued G6 Hospitality in state court because of the parties’ ongoing dispute over amounts owed under the franchise agreements. Camarillo alleged that G6 engaged in unlawful “self‑help” practices, including withholding online travel agency (OTA) proceeds amid a dispute over franchise fees. G6 removed the case to federal court after the state court issued a TRO from the bench, but the federal court denied G6’s motion to dissolve the TRO and instead reduced its requirements to writing. Camarillo, for its part, asked the court to issue an order to show cause why G6 should not be held in civil contempt for failing to comply with the TRO’s requirements, including failure to remit OTA proceeds to Camarillo within 24 hours. Noting that it has one of the busiest dockets in the country, the court required the parties to meet and confer to narrow the disputes regarding compliance with the TRO. Rather than narrow the issues, the parties’ court‑ordered conference deepened the dispute after Camarillo submitted supplemental briefing with “transcripts” from the Microsoft Teams meeting that were automatically generated by Otter.ai. While Camarillo argued the “transcripts” contained admissions by G6 demonstrating its non-compliance, G6’s counsel argued that the “transcripts” demonstrated he was recorded without consent in violation of California law.
Demonstrably frustrated by the arguments of both parties, the court concluded instead that the briefing demonstrated both sides were generally unfamiliar with the Otter.ai service, how it worked, and whether its record of the meeting was at all accurate or trustworthy. The court therefore did not rely on or further consider the “transcripts.” Nevertheless, the court concluded that Camarillo demonstrated G6’s non-compliance with the TRO because of its failure to release $406,958 in OTA proceeds. The court therefore ordered G6 to either show cause in writing why it should not be held in contempt for failure to release the proceeds, or, in the alternative, G6 could purge the contempt by remitting the $406,958 within 48 hours of the order. While Camarillo argued various other allegations of non-compliance with the TRO, the court noted that Camarillo either failed to establish prejudice (for example, from other payments that were late but ultimately paid) or failed to substantiate allegations with evidence (for example, by failing to show evidence that reservations were being misclassified).