bond requirement in California

2024Significantly, they did not object in the trial court to the lack of an undertaking with “an estimate of the amount that would be sufficient.” (§§ 529, subd. (a), 995.930, subd. (a).)6 Defendants “ ‘sav[ed] the injunction bond issue for appeal when it could have been dealt with more efficiently in the lower court with much less detriment to the party who obtained the injunction.’ ” (Gascon, supra, 94 Cal.App.5th at p. 373; Smith, supra, 182 Cal.App.4th at pp. 748–749.) Defendants were more interested in halting further court proceedings on the merits of 5 No transcript was provided, but counse

2021(Smith, supra, 182 Cal.App.4th at p. 738 .) The plaintiff argued in his application that a bond was “unnecessary.” (Ibid.) The defendant did not respond to this argument or mention the bond requirement in its opposition papers.

2021Defendants contend Smith is “inconsistent” with three cases: Neumann v. Moretti (1905) 146 Cal. 31 (Neumann), Griffin v. Lima (1954) 124 Cal.App.2d 697 (Griffin), and ABBA Rubber Co. v. Seaquist (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1 (ABBA).

2014In imposing the bond requirement, “the trial court’s function is to estimate the harmful effect which the injunction is likely to have on the restrained party, and to set the undertaking at that sum.” (ABBA, supra, 235 Cal.App.3d at p. 14 .) “[T]he first step is to identify the types of damages which the law allows a restrained party to recover in the event that the issuance of the injunction is determined to have been unjustified.

2024(West Hills Farms, Inc. v. RCO Ag Credit, Inc. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 710, 715 . ) 25 The demand requirement compels plaintiffs to attempt to persuade corporate managers to do what is fair and right.

2013Section 800 sets forth “the terms and conditions 2All further statutory references are to the Corporations Code unless otherwise stated. 4 under which a shareholder derivative action may be maintained. [Citation.]” (West Hill Farms, Inc. v. RCO Ag Credit, Inc. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 710, 715 .) The purpose of the bond provision of subdivision (c) of section 800 is to shield the corporation from meritless lawsuits by requiring the plaintiff to provide a bond as a condition of maintaining the lawsuit.

2022The failure of that effort does not deprive the court of jurisdiction to dispose of the bond in accordance with the express instructions of the very statute pursuant to which appellants indicated they were posting it.9 Finally, the purpose of the bond requirement is “to provide assurance that a judgment in favor of the employee will be satisfied” and, more broadly, “ ‘discourage employers from . . . hiding assets in order to avoid enforcement of the judgment.’ ” (Palagin, supra, 222 Cal.App.4th at p. 130 .) Courts have strictly enforced the bond requirement as a jurisdictional prerequisite 9 A

2022The purpose of the bond requirement is to “ ‘discourage employers from filing frivolous appeals and from hiding assets in order to avoid enforcement of the judgment.’ ” (Palagin, supra, 222 Cal.App.4th at p. 137 ; see also Cardinal Care, supra, 47 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1018–1019 [bond requirement “discourages unmeritorious appeals and minimizes the time for an employer to divest itself of assets in order to deprive the employee of the possibility of 19 enforcing the award”].) Ernst offers no reason that the bond requirement in section 98.2, subdivision (b), is not an effective means to accomplish

2022As noted, she had the right to seek a waiver of the bond requirement (Burkes, supra, 26 Cal.App.5th at p. 343 ), and exercised that right by seeking a waiver of the bond requirement with the superior court.

2022A jurisdictional undertaking requirement therefore poses no barrier to a fair adjudication of the wage claim, but merely conditions the availability of a further trial de novo process that the Legislature does not have to provide at all.” (Ibid.) We find the reasoning of Palagin persuasive and conclude that the bond requirement under section 98.2 did not deprive 17 Ernst of due process.11 (Cf. Cardinal Care, supra, 47 Cal.App.5th at p. 1023 [rejecting “appellants’ suggestion that the limited 10- day time period for obtaining an undertaking deprived them of substantive due process.”]; Burkes, s

2021Defendants contend Smith is “inconsistent” with three cases: Neumann v. Moretti (1905) 146 Cal. 31 (Neumann), Griffin v. Lima (1954) 124 Cal.App.2d 697 (Griffin), and ABBA Rubber Co. v. Seaquist (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1 (ABBA).

2021Defendants contend Smith is “inconsistent” with three cases: Neumann v. Moretti (1905) 146 Cal. 31 (Neumann), Griffin v. Lima (1954) 124 Cal.App.2d 697 (Griffin), and ABBA Rubber Co. v. Seaquist (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1 (ABBA).

2021Defendants contend Smith is “inconsistent” with three cases: Neumann v. Moretti (1905) 146 Cal. 31 (Neumann), Griffin v. Lima (1954) 124 Cal.App.2d 697 (Griffin), and ABBA Rubber Co. v. Seaquist (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1 (ABBA).

2021(See City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (1940) 15 Cal.2d 16, 23 [finding waiver where the parties both stipulated to entry of an injunction and then one party waited a year before moving to dissolve the injunction for lack of a bond].) Nor are we persuaded by defendants’ broad argument that Smith should not be followed “because its reasoning is inconsistent with the mandatory language of [] section 529(a), as well as being inconsistent with [] Neumann [], Griffin [], and [] ABBA.” Neither Neumann nor Griffin addresses forfeiture or waiver. ( Neumann, supra, 146 Cal. 31 ; Griffin, supra, 124

2019They provide "an accessible, informal, and affordable" avenue for employees to seek resolution, with assistance available if necessary. ( Sonic II , supra , 57 Cal.4th at p. 1129 , 163 Cal.Rptr.3d 269 , 311 P.3d 184 .) They discourage unmeritorious appeals through a bond requirement and a fee-shifting scheme that favors employees.

2019They provide "an accessible, informal, and affordable" avenue for employees to seek resolution, with assistance available if necessary. ( Sonic II , supra , 57 Cal.4th at p. 1129 , 163 Cal.Rptr.3d 269 , 311 P.3d 184 .) They discourage unmeritorious appeals through a bond requirement and a fee-shifting scheme that favors employees.

2018Instead, the UCL cause of action was expressly premised only on the allegation that "Defendants violated the FTSL ... and therefore engaged in unfair competition." Because the BBB representation is not an actionable violation of the FTSL, Demeter cannot now rely on that allegation to argue a jury must decide whether he was injured for purposes of the *826 UCL. 4 (See Hutton v. Fidelity National Title Co. (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 486 , 493, 152 Cal.Rptr.3d 584 ; Conroy v. Regents of University of California (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1244 , 1253-1254, 91 Cal.Rptr.3d 532 , 203 P.3d 1127 .) Demeter's citati

2018Instead, the UCL cause of action was expressly premised only on the allegation that “Defendants violated the FTSL . . . and therefore engaged in unfair competition.” Because the BBB representation is not an actionable violation of the FTSL, Demeter cannot now rely on that allegation to argue a jury must decide whether he was injured for purposes of the UCL.4 (See Hutton v. Fidelity 4 Even if we were to consider Demeter’s BBB allegation as a separate ground for his UCL claim, we would conclude he has not provided sufficient evidence of injury to survive summary 16 National Title Co. (2013) 213

2018Instead, the UCL cause of action was expressly premised only on the allegation that "Defendants violated the FTSL ... and therefore engaged in unfair competition." Because the BBB representation is not an actionable violation of the FTSL, Demeter cannot now rely on that allegation to argue a jury must decide whether he was injured for purposes of the *826 UCL. 4 (See Hutton v. Fidelity National Title Co. (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 486 , 493, 152 Cal.Rptr.3d 584 ; Conroy v. Regents of University of California (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1244 , 1253-1254, 91 Cal.Rptr.3d 532 , 203 P.3d 1127 .) Demeter's citati

2018Instead, the UCL cause of action was expressly premised only on the allegation that "Defendants violated the FTSL ... and therefore engaged in unfair competition." Because the BBB representation is not an actionable violation of the FTSL, Demeter cannot now rely on that allegation to argue a jury must decide whether he was injured for purposes of the *826 UCL. 4 (See Hutton v. Fidelity National Title Co. (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 486 , 493, 152 Cal.Rptr.3d 584 ; Conroy v. Regents of University of California (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1244 , 1253-1254, 91 Cal.Rptr.3d 532 , 203 P.3d 1127 .) Demeter's citati

2018Instead, the UCL cause of action was expressly premised only on the allegation that "Defendants violated the FTSL ... and therefore engaged in unfair competition." Because the BBB representation is not an actionable violation of the FTSL, Demeter cannot now rely on that allegation to argue a jury must decide whether he was injured for purposes of the *826 UCL. 4 (See Hutton v. Fidelity National Title Co. (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 486 , 493, 152 Cal.Rptr.3d 584 ; Conroy v. Regents of University of California (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1244 , 1253-1254, 91 Cal.Rptr.3d 532 , 203 P.3d 1127 .) Demeter's citati

2018Instead, the UCL cause of action was expressly premised only on the allegation that "Defendants violated the FTSL ... and therefore engaged in unfair competition." Because the BBB representation is not an actionable violation of the FTSL, Demeter cannot now rely on that allegation to argue a jury must decide whether he was injured for purposes of the *826 UCL. 4 (See Hutton v. Fidelity National Title Co. (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 486 , 493, 152 Cal.Rptr.3d 584 ; Conroy v. Regents of University of California (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1244 , 1253-1254, 91 Cal.Rptr.3d 532 , 203 P.3d 1127 .) Demeter's citati

2018Because Demeter admitted he did not know about the bond requirement when he purchased his TAXI membership, he cannot establish "the practices that [he] characterizes as unlawful caused [him] to suffer an actual economic injury." ( Two Jinn , supra , 233 Cal.App.4th at p. 1333 , 183 Cal.Rptr.3d 432 .) Demeter's evidence regarding TAXI's BBB rating cannot save the lack of the requisite injury for UCL purposes because Demeter's operative complaint *916 did not allege a UCL violation based on that misrepresentation.

2018Because Demeter admitted he did not know about the bond requirement when he purchased his TAXI membership, he cannot establish "the practices that [he] characterizes as unlawful caused [him] to suffer an actual economic injury." ( Two Jinn , supra , 233 Cal.App.4th at p. 1333 , 183 Cal.Rptr.3d 432 .) Demeter's evidence regarding TAXI's BBB rating cannot save the lack of the requisite injury for UCL purposes because Demeter's operative complaint *916 did not allege a UCL violation based on that misrepresentation.

2001Where the plaintiff establishes indigency, a trial court has discretion to waive the posting of security under Code of Civil Procedure section 1030. ( Bank of America v. Superior Court (1967) 255 Cal. App.2d 575, 578 , 63 Cal.Rptr. 366 .) However, the plaintiff should make a prima facie showing that he has unsuccessfully attempted to obtain the required undertaking or that he is unable to furnish it. ( Fuller v. State of California (1969) 1 Cal. App.3d 664, 668 , 82 Cal.Rptr. 78 .) Appellant accompanied his motion for relief with his declaration stating that he had no savings and neither he no

2001Where the plaintiff establishes indigency, a trial court has discretion to waive the posting of security under Code of Civil Procedure section 1030. ( Bank of America v. Superior Court (1967) 255 Cal. App.2d 575, 578 , 63 Cal.Rptr. 366 .) However, the plaintiff should make a prima facie showing that he has unsuccessfully attempted to obtain the required undertaking or that he is unable to furnish it. ( Fuller v. State of California (1969) 1 Cal. App.3d 664, 668 , 82 Cal.Rptr. 78 .) Appellant accompanied his motion for relief with his declaration stating that he had no savings and neither he no

2025(Id. at p. 1062.) “A claim arises from protected activity when that activity underlies or forms the basis for the claim.” (Ibid.) “[A] claim may be struck only if the speech or petitioning activity itself is the wrong complained of, and not just evidence of liability or a step leading to some different act for which liability is asserted.” (Id. at p. 1060.) “[C]ourts should consider the elements of the challenged claim and what actions by the defendant supply those elements and consequently form the basis for liability.” (Id. at p. 1063.) “That a cause of action arguably may have been triggere

2025To state a claim for declaratory relief, “there must be an ‘actual controversy’ relating to the legal rights and duties of the parties.” (Country Side Villas Homeowners Assn. v. Ivie (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1118 , citing Code Civ.

2024(Id. at pp. 1189–1190, 1193–1198.) In contrast, the Court of Appeal in Konica, supra, 206 Cal.App.3d 449 , held that a public entity abused its discretion by waiving deviations from bid specifications that allowed a bidder to make a lower bid than would have been possible without the deviations.

2024(Id. at pp. 1189–1190, 1193–1198.) In contrast, the Court of Appeal in Konica, supra, 206 Cal.App.3d 449 , held that a public entity abused its discretion by waiving deviations from bid specifications that allowed a bidder to make a lower bid than would have been possible without the deviations.

2024(Ibid.) The bond requirement can, under some circumstances, force plaintiffs to post substantial sums to pursue a derivative suit. ( Hogan, supra, 38 Cal.2d at pp. 805–807; see Corp. Code, § 800, subds. (c) & (d).) The goal is to create a deterrent to unwarranted shareholder derivative lawsuits by providing a mechanism for securing some portion of a prevailing defendant’s expenses.

2024(See Baral, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 384 .) We similarly conclude Bond’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is without merit.

2023Feuer v. Progressive Horizon, Inc. (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 533, 538-539 .) Second, the Registrar did not argue for the posting of bond or for an amount in its written opposition to the Committee’s application for an injunction.14 The trial court’s tentative decision informed the Registrar of the posting of bond, the failure of the parties to set forth argument on a bond amount, and the ability to raise “the value of the bond at the hearing.” The Registrar did not do so,15 and instead 14 The Committee has filed a motion to augment the record to include a reporter’s transcript of a hearing on Feb