Gatto

United Medical Management Ltd. v. Gatto

Good Law
1996 Cal. App. LEXIS 980·49 Cal. App. 4th 1732·57 Cal. Rptr. 2d 600·96 Daily Journal DAR 12609·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7692
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 16, 1996B099882California2,760 words

Opinion

Opinion

Grignon, J.

Without qualifying to transact intrastate business pursuant to Corporations Code section 2105, a foreign corporation enters into a contract with a California corporation to transact intrastate business. The California corporation breaches the contract. The foreign corporation thereafter qualifies to transact intrastate business and brings an action for breach of contract. The question presented is whether the foreign corporation may maintain the breach of contract action without complying with section 2203, subdivision (c), which requires the foreign corporation to provide proof of payment of state taxes. We conclude that a foreign corporation which qualifies to transact intrastate business after transacting, but prior to commencing an action on, intrastate business may maintain the action without complying with section 2203, subdivision (c). Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of dismissal entered on the ground of noncompliance with section 2203, subdivision (c).

Statutory Background

Because the statutory background is necessary for an understanding of the facts and procedure in this case, we begin with the relevant statutes. A foreign corporation is prohibited from…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.