Judge: James A. Mangione, Case: 37-2023-00000006-CU-NP-CTL, Date: 2024-01-12 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - January 12, 2024

01/12/2024  09:00:00 AM  C-75 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:James A Mangione

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Non-PI/PD/WD tort - Other Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2023-00000006-CU-NP-CTL THERESA VISCUSO BY AND THROUGH HER SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST MARIA VISCUSO VS SCRIPPS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL LA JOLLA [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Defendant/Cross-Defendant CCW La Jolla, LLC dba Vi at La Jolla Village's Motion to Require an Undertaking is denied.

Code of Civil Procedure § 1030 provides that if a plaintiff (or, in this case, cross-complainant) resides out of state, the defendant (or, this case, cross-defendant) may, at any time, apply to the court by noticed motion for an order requiring cross-complainant to file an undertaking to secure an award of costs.

Subsection (b) compels the moving party to demonstrate a 'reasonable probability' it will obtain judgment.

All parties agree one of the Cross-Complainants resides out of state; consequently, this motion is centered on the requirement to demonstrate a reasonable probability that moving Cross-Defendant will obtain judgment. While the Court agrees with Cross-Defendant that the 'reasonable probability' standard is quite low, the failure of the moving party to present any competent evidence in support of this motion is fatal. The only purported evidence provided by Cross-Defendant is an opinion rendered by its counsel and representations in the motion that unnamed experts have an opinion that Cross-Defendant has a reasonable probability of prevailing. The Court finds this to be insufficient evidence to prevail on a CCP § 1030 motion.

As set forth above, the statute itself states this motion can be brought at any time. If, at some point in the future, Cross-Defendant believes it has sufficient evidence to satisfy the statutory requirements, by way of appropriate expert declarations, it can file a new motion seeking the same relief.

The Court notes that Cross-Defendant also appears to have scheduled a Motion to Post a Bond.

Although this appears to be a duplicate scheduling issue, to the extent this was intended to be a separate motion, it is ordered off-calendar for failure to file moving papers with the Court.

The minute order is the order of the Court.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3043815  3