Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 23SMCP00313, Date: 2024-09-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCP00313    Hearing Date: September 16, 2024    Dept: I

The court continued the matter to determine whether a bench warrant could issue given that there is no personal service over the judgment debtor.  Judgment creditor says it is proper for two reasons.  The first is that there was a prior appearance and examination.  That is not sufficient.  That examination went forward and concluded.  The court did not retain jurisdiction over judgment debtor at that time.  Had the court done so, that would be one thing.  But jurisdiction does not continue indefinitely once the examination has occurred.  The second reason is that the judgment debtor requested service by email.  In an email following a sub-service, judgment debtor appeared annoyed and said that if judgment creditor needed him, to call or email.  That is not enough.  A formal agreement to accept electronic service of process in lieu of personal service would probably do, but the agreement must be plain.  This is a far cry from that.  Accordingly, judgment creditor will need to serve judgment debtor personally unless he formally agrees to accept service of process some other way.  Judgment creditor might want to call or email and ask judgment debtor if electronic service will be acceptable for service of process until and unless judgment debtor says otherwise.  There is a good chance judgment debtor will say yes.  But until then, personal service is required.  The court notes that a bench warrant can lead (at least in theory) to arrest and detention; a liberty interest is at stake.  The court will not cut corners in such cases.  Absent clear appellate authority to issue a warrant on less than personal service, the court will not issue it.