Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 20STCV27050, Date: 2023-03-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV27050    Hearing Date: March 7, 2023    Dept: 28

Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s Motion for Undertaking

Having considered the moving, opposition and reply papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND

On July 20, 2020, Plaintiff Bridgette Stoval (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“LACMTA”), City of Los Angeles (“City”) and County of Los Angeles (“County”) for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence.

On December 24, 2020, the County filed an answer; the County was later dismissed, without prejudice. On January 29, 2021, the City was dismissed, without prejudice, pursuant to Plaintiff’s request. On January 21, 2021, LACMTA filed an answer.

On November 23, 2022, LACMTA filed a Motion for Undertaking to be heard on March 7, 2023. On February 22, 2023, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On February 28, 2023, LACMTA filed a reply.

Trial is currently set for May 16, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

LACMTA requests that the Court order Plaintiff to post an undertaking of at least $40,000.00 to secure an award of costs and fees.

Plaintiff requests the Court deny the motion.

OBJECTIONS

Plaintiff’s Objections:

Sustained: 1, 3, 6

Overruled: 2, 4, 5

LEGAL STANDARD

Under California Code of Civil Procedure §1030, a defendant may, at any time, apply to the court by noticed motion for an order requiring the plaintiff to file an undertaking to secure an award of costs which may be awarded in the action or special proceeding when the plaintiff in an action resides out of the state. The motion shall be made on the grounds that the plaintiff resides out of the state and that there is a reasonable possibility that the moving defendant will obtain judgment in the action. It shall be accompanied by an affidavit in support of the grounds for the motion and by a memorandum of points and authorities.  The affidavit shall set forth the nature and amount of the costs the defendant has incurred and expects to incur by the conclusion of the action.  If the court, after hearing, determines that the grounds for the motion have been established, the court shall order that the plaintiff file the undertaking in an amount specified in the court’s order as security for costs. 

For purposes of the statute, residence is based upon Plaintiffs’ actual residence, and not their domicile. (Myers v. Carter (1960) 178 Cal App 2d 622, 626.)

The moving defendant is required to show that it is reasonably possible that the moving defendant will win at trial, not that Plaintiff has no possibility to win.  (Baltayan v. Estate of Getemyan (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1427, 1432.)

A prevailing party includes: 1) a party with a monetary recovery; 2) a party in whose favor a dismissal is entered; 3) a defendant where neither plaintiff nor defendant obtains any relief; and 4) a defendant as against those plaintiffs who do not recover any relief against that defendant. (Charton v. Harkey (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 730, 737-738; C.C.P. § 1032(4).)

“The court may, in its discretion, waive a provision for a bond in an action or proceeding and make such orders as may be appropriate as if the bond were given, if the court determines that the principal is unable to give the bond because the principal is indigent and is unable to obtain sufficient sureties, whether personal or admitted surety insurers. In exercising its discretion the court shall take into consideration all factors it deems relevant, including but not limited to the character of the action or proceeding, the nature of the beneficiary, whether public or private, and the potential harm to the beneficiary if the provision for the bond is waived.” (Alshafie v. Lallande (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 421, 429.)

DISCUSSION

The Court has already denied LACMTA’s request for an undertaking on November 22, 2022. The Court ruled that LACMTA failed to provide sufficient proof of costs to justify such an undertaking AND that Plaintiff provided a declaration attesting to indigent status.   LACMTA does not address Plaintiff’s showing of indigency, except to claim that “it is highly questionable.”  LACMTA’s reference to the Declaration of Su, ¶ 4 offers no reason to question Plaintiff’s assertion.  The Court denies the motion.

CONCLUSION

Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s Motion for Undertaking is DENIED.

            Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Moving Party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.