Under Code of Civil Procedure § 708.170(a)(1)(B), failure to appear at a judgment debtor examination may result in the issuance of a bench warrant, issued pursuant to §1993. Under Code of Civil Procedure §1993, the Court, as an alternative to a contempt of court order pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1209, may instead issue an arrest warrant under certain circumstances.
Code of Civil Procedure § 1993 requires(1) “proof of the service of the subpoena or order”, and (2) “payment of fees as provided in Section 26744.5 of the Government Code” prior to any arrest being carried out. Further, the Court must issue a “failure to appear” notice prior to issuing the warrant, where such notice “may be omitted only upon a showing that the appearance of the person subject to the subpoena is material to the case and that urgency dictates the person's immediate appearance.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1993(a)(2).)
Under CCP section 708.170, when an order requiring a person to appear for an examination was served and the person fails to appear the Court may award reasonable attorney’s fees incurred by the judgment creditor, if the person’s failure to appear is without good cause.
“Before issuing a warrant for a failure to appear pursuant to a subpoena. . ., the court shall issue a ‘failure to appear’ notice informing the person subject to the subpoena that a failure to appear in response to the notice may result in the issuance of a warrant.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1993(a)(2).) A notice of ruling is not a substitute, because it would not be issued by the court.
Code of Civ. Proc. §1993(b)(11) permits the Court to either include the right to release upon promise to appear or not in the bench warrant, and such provision was not included in the bench warrants for John Brown and Tami Brown. Second, when read in conjunction with Code of Civ. Proc. §1993.1, Code of Civ. Proc. §1993(b)(11) appears to only apply to circumstances where the individuals subject to bench warrant have been arrested by the Sheriff, who “may release the person” from custody pursuant to the requirements of Code Civ. Proc. §§1993(b)(11), 1993.1.
In Sakaguchi v. Sakaguchi, the California Court of Appeals held that a one-letter misspelling on a proof of service did not render the subsequent default judgment void. (Sakaguchi v. Sakaguchi (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 852.)
“As an alternative to issuing a warrant for contempt pursuant to paragraph (5) or (9) of subdivision (a) of Section 1209, the court may issue a warrant for the arrest of a witness who failed to appear pursuant to a subpoena or a person who failed to appear pursuant to a court order. The court, upon proof of the service of the subpoena or order, may issue a warrant to the sheriff of the county in which the witness or person may be located and the sheriff shall, upon payment of fees as provided in Section 26744.5 of the Government Code, arrest the witness or person and bring him or her before the court.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1993(a)(1).)
“Before issuing a warrant for a failure to appear pursuant to a subpoena pursuant to this section, the court shall issue a ‘failure to appear’ notice informing the person subject to the subpoena that a failure to appear in response to the notice may result in the issuance of a warrant.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1993(a)(2).)
“Upon the answer and evidence taken, the court or judge shall determine whether the person proceeded against is guilty of the contempt charged, and if it be adjudged that he or she is guilty of the contempt, a fine may be imposed on him or her not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), payable to the court, or he or she may be imprisoned not exceeding five days, or both. In addition, a person who is subject to a court order as a party to the action, or any agent of this person, who is adjudged guilty of contempt for violating that court order may be ordered to pay to the party initiating the contempt proceeding the reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred by this party in connection with the contempt proceeding.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1218(a).)
cancel future bookings to comply with the new ordinances; and (4) the need to submit costly and burdensome hardship applications to extend the amortization schedule beyond 18 months.
Sep 29, 2030
Orange County, CA
With respect to the first question, the Court concludes that Section 13.2(f) does not preclude SARVS from attempting to obtain compensation for any alleged loss of goodwill. Notably, nowhere in that section is there any reference to goodwill or any statement to the effect that any potential item of compensation not explicitly referenced therein is considered waived.
Apr 25, 2026
Orange County, CA
“The failure to comply with this requirement of a separate statement may in the court's discretion constitute a sufficient ground for denying the motion.” (Id.) 2. Evolution Evolution manages the operations of the hotel pursuant to a management agreement with T-12 and is a party plaintiff to the First Cause of Action for Breach of Contract, and the Second Cause of Action for Negligence. Evolution is not a party to the express and implied warranty claims.
Apr 25, 2026
Orange County, CA
CAS004001, as amended on June 16, 2015 by State Board Order WQ 2015-0075, which is remanded to you for reconsideration in light of the Decision of this Court dated April 18, 2019. Nothing herein shall limit or control in any way the discretion legally vested in you. YOU ARE FURTHER COMMANDED to file with this Court a return to this writ on or before (90 plus 30 days as per Respondents’ request) stating what you have done to comply.
Jun 20, 2021
Orange County, CA
The hearings on the applications are continued to 7/19/19 to allow the applicants to provide supplemental information regarding the foregoing factors. The supplemental information should be submitted by 7/12/19. No appearance is required at the hearing set for 6/21/19.
Jun 20, 2021
Orange County, CA
Continued to 7-19-2019
Jun 20, 2021
Orange County, CA
(NOTE: All hearings currently set in Department 29 of the Spring Street Courthouse are taken off calendar subject to being reset and notified by the receiving court Re: New hearing dates.) Judicial Assistant is directed to give notice to Plaintiff, who upon receipt of this notice, is ordered to give notice to all parties of record.
Oct 13, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
A Case Management Conference and an Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to Proceed with Default Judgment are set for July 2, 2020. Discussion Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice. The following defects are noted: This instant case pertains to 16010 Phoenix Drive, City of Industry, CA, 91745 only. Plaintiff’s authorized agent, Michael Tang (“Tang”), attests that the monthly rental amount was $43,153.00, which was subsequently increased to $44,447.59 effective May 1, 2019.
Oct 07, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff has not provided the court with an explanation regarding why this was done or provided the court with any information regarding Zaragoza’s ability to read and/or speak English. The first loan agreement to Zaragoza is undated. Plaintiff is requested to attach and authenticate the checks attached to the complaint to any future declaration, with any handwritten notes in Spanish translated.
Sep 24, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
After the checks had been sent to Round Table, Plaintiff learned that the vehicle price was to be paid directly to the selling dealer, and that only the broker fee was to be paid directly to Round Table. Round Table cashed the checks and refuse to return the monies to Plaintiff.
Sep 23, 2020
Contract
Breach
Los Angeles County, CA
(NOTE: All hearings currently set in Department 29 of the Spring Street Courthouse are taken off calendar subject to being reset and notified by the receiving court Re: New hearing dates.) Judicial Assistant is directed to give notice to Plaintiff, who upon receipt of this notice, is ordered to give notice to all parties of record.
Sep 18, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
(NOTE: All hearings currently set in Department 29 of the Spring Street Courthouse are taken off calendar subject to being reset and notified by the receiving court Re: New hearing dates.) Judicial Assistant is directed to give notice to Plaintiff, who upon receipt of this notice, is ordered to give notice to all parties of record.
Aug 31, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
(NOTE: All hearings currently set in Department 29 of the Spring Street Courthouse are taken off calendar subject to being reset and notified by the receiving court Re: New hearing dates.) Judicial Assistant is directed to give notice to Plaintiff, who upon receipt of this notice, is ordered to give notice to all Parties of record.
Aug 27, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
The next previously scheduled hearing is on 8/18/20 to review the filing / sufficiency of the status report due on or before 7/20/20.
Aug 18, 2020
Family Law
Conservatorship
Ventura County, CA
The next previously scheduled hearing is on 8/18/20 to review the filing / sufficiency of the status report due on or before 7/20/20.
Aug 18, 2020
Family Law
Conservatorship
Ventura County, CA
The Loan was subsequently assigned to Plaintiff. Lopez has defaulted on the Loan by failing to make all required payments due thereunder. On October 25, 2019, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting a cause of action against Lopez and Does 1-5 for: Breach of Written Contract On January 16, 2020, Lopez’s default was entered. A Case Management Conference is set for March 23, 2020. Discussion Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.
Aug 17, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
(“Hummingbird”) failed to provide him with rest and meal breaks, failed to pay him all wages due, including overtime, and failed to provide him with accurate wage statements. On October 25, 2017, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Defendants Hummingbird and Does 1-50 for: Failure to Provide Rest Periods—Cal. Labor Code § 226.7 Failure to Provide Meal Periods—Cal. Labor Code § 226.7 Failure to Pay Minimum Wage—Cal. Labor Code § 1197 Failure to Pay Overtime—Cal.
Aug 14, 2020
Employment
Other Employment
Los Angeles County, CA
A Case Management Conference and an Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service are set for August 12, 2020. Discussion Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment is GRANTED. ANALYSIS Yes (7/6/20) Default Entered. (JC Form CIV-100.) Yes Dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment against specified parties under CCP 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment. (CRC 3.1800(a)(7).)
Aug 12, 2020
Contract
Breach
Los Angeles County, CA
In any event, as Emanate points out, Plaintiff fails to identify any determinable legal standard that Kalkat’s purported failure “to get back to” Beharie may violate.
Aug 06, 2020
Business
Intellectual Property
Los Angeles County, CA
Yoo, CJME and Does 1-10 for: Breach of Oral Contract Intentional Misrepresentation Defamation Quantum Meruit Unjust Enrichment Conspiracy to Defraud On May 23, 2019, E. Yoo’s, S. Yoo’s and CJME’s defaults were entered. A Case Management Conference and Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to Proceed with Default Judgment are set for August 6, 2020 Discussion Plaintiff’s application for default judgment is DENIED without prejudice.
Aug 06, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
Chen advised Plaintiff that he had been operating a successful business, Tissuesco Group (“Tissuesco”), for many years and could assist Plaintiff to open a business and obtain a visa. On or around March 24, 2018, the parties signed a contract, in which Plaintiff agreed to invest $120,000.00 to Tissuesco and, in return, Tissuesco would open, operate and manage a company for Plaintiff and assist Plaintiff in applying for an L-1 visa.
Jul 31, 2020
Contract
Breach
Los Angeles County, CA
To be admissible, a declaration made out-of-state for use in California must state that the statements were made under penalty of California law in material compliance with Code of Civil Procedure Section 2015.5. Kulshrestha v. First Union Commercial Corp. (2004) 33 Cal.4th 601, 618. As such, the default judgment is procedurally defective and lacks admissible evidence.
Jul 30, 2020
Collections
Promisory Note
Los Angeles County, CA
(NOTE: All hearings currently set in Department 29 of the Spring Street Courthouse are taken off calendar subject to being reset and notified by the receiving court Re: New hearing dates.) Judicial Assistant is directed to give notice to Plaintiff, who upon receipt of this notice, is ordered to give notice to all parties of record.
Jul 30, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Board of Fire and Police Pension Commissioners move for an order granting leave to file their FACC, explaining that “this additional cause of action merely clarifies that, in the unlikely event that the Board were to lose title to the Parking Lot after trial, the Board would nonetheless be entitled to an equitable lien based upon its payoff of a prior loan that Chino Americana took out in connection to the Parking Lot.” (Id. at p. 4:8-11.)
Jul 29, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
A Case Management Conference and an Order too Show Cause Re: Failure to Proceed with Default Judgment are set for July 29, 2020. Discussion Plaintiffs’ Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice. The following defects are noted: Plaintiffs’ Judicial Council Request for Entry of Default Form CIV-100 states that the “[d]emand of complaint” is $76,476.15.
Jul 29, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
Please wait a moment while we gather your results.
