Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 23SMCV02205, Date: 2024-04-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV02205    Hearing Date: April 30, 2024    Dept: P

Hale v Dorfman, case no. 23SMCV02205

Defendant Dorfman’s Motion for Undertaking for Costs (CCP 1030) – tentative ruling

Hearing date: 4/30/24

In this dental malpractice case, defendant Dorfman seeks an undertaking (CCP 1030), as plaintiff resides out of state, and defendant argues he has a reasonable possibility of obtaining a judgment in his favor.

CCP 1030 requires an undertaking for non-resident plaintiffs when there is a “reasonable possibility” moving defendant will prevail.

Defendant cites the declaration of Dr. Garabedian, who opines the treatment complied with the standard of care (Garabedian Decl., para. 4-5). Defendant seeks a bond of $47,546.95 for estimated costs through trial (Creason Decl.).

Plaintiff argues her case is meritorious, and she does not have funds to post a bond. Per the Hale Decl., paras. 2-3 and Goldberg Decl., para. 3, plaintiff is 62 years old, unemployed, receives Social Security and does not have funds sufficient to post the bond. Plaintiff does not substantively argue the “reasonable possibility” of Dorfman’s success on the merits of the litigation. Plaintiff submits the supplemental declaration of counsel Goldberg, who states that plaintiff’s consulting expert witness opined the suit was meritorious. Goldberg Supp. Decl., para. 2.

The court in its discretion may waive the requirement to post the bond if plaintiff is indigent. Alshafie v. Lallande (2009) 171 Cal.App.4^th 421, 431.

Requiring a bond in these circumstances would deprive the plaintiff of her ability to bring this suit. That is not what the Code mandates. Motion DENIED.