MOTION FOR REISSUANCE OF BENCH WARRANT FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR AT JUDGMENT DEBTOR EXAMINATION

Moving Parties: Plaintiffs

Respondent: No opposition filed

POS: Moving papers are filed only 14 court days before the hearing and served by regular mail just 16 court days + 1 calendar day in violation of CCP § 1005(b).

In this matter a default judgment was entered against the defendant on 6/20/11. On September 29, 2011, defendant was personally served with an Order re: Judgment Debtor Examination and Subpoena for Production of Records set for December 15, 2011. Defendant failed to appear on December 13, 2011. The matter was continued to March 15, 2012. Defendant failed to appear on March 15, 2012, and a Bench Warrant for the body attachment of defendant was issued with bail set for $25,000. One year later, on March 11, 2013, the Bench Warrant was returned to the Court Clerk ny the Sheriff’s Department as unserved. The Sheriff’s Department had made six unsuccessful attempts to locate the defendant at the address provided by counsel for plaintiffs. This motion seeks to have the Mach 15, 2012 Bench Warrant reissued pursuant to CCP § 1993.

SERVICE OF THE MOTION:

“Unless otherwise ordered or specifically provided by law, all moving and supporting papers shall be served and filed at least 16 court days before the hearing. The moving and supporting papers served shall be a copy of the papers filed or to be filed with the court. However, if the notice is served by mail, the required 16-day period of notice before the hearing shall be increased by five calendar days if the place of mailing and the place of address are within the State of California…” (CCP § 1005(b).)

The moving parties fail to comply with the requirements of CCP § 1005(b). Specifically, the moving papers are filed only 14 court days before the hearing and served by regular mail only 16 court days plus 1 calendar day before the hearing.

MERITS:

Plaintiffs are seeking a reissuance of a bench warrant that was issued on March 15, 2012. However, based on the time that passed since the issuance, i.e., almost two years go, and given that the Sheriff was unsuccessful in locating the defendant at the address provided after six attemtps, the Judgment Debtor should be served with a new notice of a judgment debtor examination to verify that his whereabouts are currently known. Thus, the motion is denied.