Judge: H. Jay Ford, III, Case: 23SMCV01702, Date: 2025-03-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV01702    Hearing Date: March 28, 2025    Dept: O

  Case Name:  Maguluri v. Cornerstone Ondemand, Inc.

SUBJECT:                 MOTION FOR UNDERTAKING PURSUANT TO CCP § 1030   

MOVING PARTY:   Defendant Howard Building Corporation (Doe 2)

RESP. PARTY:         Plaintiff Madhavi Maguluru

TENTATIVE RULING

            Defendant Howard Building Corporation (Doe 2)’s Motion for Undertaking pursuant to CCP § 1030 is DENIED. Defendant establishes that Plaintiff resides out of state, however, Defendant does not meet their evidentiary burden to show a reasonable possibility of prevailing on the claims.   

            CCP §1030(a) states “When the plaintiff in an action or special proceeding resides out of the state, or is a foreign corporation, the 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 and attorney's fees which may be awarded in the action or special proceeding. For the purposes of this section, “attorney's fees” means reasonable attorney's fees a party may be authorized to recover by a statute apart from this section or by contract.” (Code Civ. Pro. § 1030, subd. (a).)

            CCP §1030(b) states “The motion shall be made on the grounds that the plaintiff resides out of the state or is a foreign corporation and that there is a reasonable possibility that the moving defendant will obtain judgment in the action or special proceeding. The motion 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 and attorney's fees the defendant has incurred and expects to incur by the conclusion of the action or special proceeding.” (Code Civ. Pro. § 1030, subd. (b). Emphasis added.)

            Howard Building Corporation argues it hired subcontractors defendants F.E. Construction and Renegade Flooring to perform the work of constructing the subject ramp but retained no control over their work. A hirer can only be held liable if it retained control over the subcontractor’s work and affirmatively contributed to the injury. See Hooker v. Department of Transportation, (2002) 27 Cal.4th 198; see Privette v. Superior Ct., (1993) 5 Cal. 4th 689, 693. Howard argues: (1) it properly delegated to and relied upon the expertise of its subcontractors to perform the specific duties relating to the specialized and technical work of constructing the subject ramp; (2) The specific tasks performed by the subcontractors do not fall under any nondelegable duty imposed by statute, regulation, or contract; (3) Howard was not aware of, nor did it create or control, the dangerous condition that allegedly caused Plaintiff’s injury; and, (4) The alleged dangerous condition was created by subcontractors F.E. Construction and Renegade Flooring and later managed and controlled by lessee Cornerstone OnDemand, Inc. 

            However, Howard does not offer any evidence to support the facts it relies on to show  Defendant has a reasonable probability of prevailing on their claim. These facts are not alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint or otherwise admitted being true by Plaintiff in any of the responses to the discovery attached to counsel’s declaration. It is not Plaintiff’s burden to disprove Howard’s allegations. Howard must provide some admissible evidence to meet their burden and fails to do so.