Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 20STCV01095, Date: 2022-09-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV01095    Hearing Date: September 27, 2022    Dept: 61

Defendant Joseph Rubin’s Motion to Quash Order for Appearance and Examination is GRANTED in part. The order is not quashed, but Defendant may appear for examination by remote means.

I.       MOTION TO QUASH ORDER FOR DEBTOR EXAMINATION

While the court in which a judgment is entered is ordinarily the proper court for examination of a judgment debtor, “[a] person sought to be examined may not be required to attend an examination before a court located outside the county in which the person resides or has a place of business unless the distance from the person's place of residence or place of business to the place of examination is less than 150 miles.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 708.160, subd. (b).)

Defendant and judgment debtor Joseph Rubin (Defendant) moves to quash the order for his appearance and examination entered on August 9, 2022, on the grounds that he resides and works in Boston, Massachusetts, and as such lacks a place of business or residence within 150 miles of this court. (Motion at p. 3; Rubin Decl. ¶¶ 2–3.)

This argument is unpersuasive, because Rubin possesses a place of business within 150 miles of this court — namely, The Coachella Lighthouse, the cannabis dispensary that was the subject of this action, which is located in Palm Springs, California, and which Rubin continues to manage as the chief executive officer. (Rubin Decl. ¶ 6.) Although Rubin claims to perform his work “95%” remotely, he presents no authority for the proposition that his management of a place of business in Palm Springs does not qualify that business as a “place of business” under Code of Civil Procedure § 708.160, subd. (b).

Defendant further argues that, should the order not be quashed, he should be permitted to appear for examination remotely, given the expense and inconvenience entailed to traveling across the country for examination. (Motion at p. 3; Rubin Decl. ¶ 3.) Defendant cites statutes permitting deponents to appear for deposition in difference physical locations from their deposing officers (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.310, subd. (a)), and permitting parties to appear at hearings remotely, or trials to be conducted remotely by motion of the court or of one of the parties. (Code Civ. Proc. § 367.75, subd. (a), (d).)

Defendant has requested that he appear for his examination by remote means, and Plaintiff has offered no argument as to why this should not take place in opposition. Accordingly, although the motion to quash is properly DENIED, the request for a remote appearance is GRANTED.