Yao

Yao v. Superior Court

Good Law
104 Cal. App. 4th 327·127 Cal. Rptr. 2d 912·2002 Cal. App. LEXIS 5142·2002 Daily Journal DAR 14057·2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 11966
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 13, 2002B157220California2,252 words

Opinion

Opinion

Vogel, J.

Introduction

“Code of Civil Procedure section 1030 provides that upon a defendant’s motion, the trial court is required to order an out-of-state plaintiff to file an undertaking to secure recoverable costs and attorney’s fees if the defendant shows a reasonable possibility that it will obtain judgment in the action.” (Baltayan v. Estate of Getemyan (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1427, 1430 [ 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 72 ].) If the undertaking is not posted, the action “shall be dismissed as to the defendant in whose favor the order requiring the undertaking was made.” (§ 1030, subd. (d).) This mandate proceeding raises a question of first impression. Can section 1030 be applied to require an out-of-state defendant who has filed a cross-complaint against a California resident to post an undertaking in order to continue prosecution of the cross-complaint? We conclude it does not so apply.

Factual and Procedural Background

Brian Lovell sued Ruby Yao on a variety of causes of action. The operative facts involve an agreement between the two to form a production company and develop a film project and the breach(es) of that agreement.

Yao filed a cross-complaint against Lovell. The…

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.