Brandt v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County

• Decision Date: 03 October 1967
• Docket Number: S.F. 22512
• Citation: 432 P.2d 31,67 Cal.2d 437,62 Cal.Rptr. 429
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: , 432 P.2d 31 Jerome L. BRANDT, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, Respondent; Dale GRUYE et al., Real Parties in Interest

Page 429

62 Cal.Rptr. 429

67 Cal.2d 437, 432 P.2d 31

Jerome L. BRANDT, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, Respondent;

Dale GRUYE et al., Real Parties in Interest.

S.F. 22512.

Supreme Court of California

Oct. 3, 1967.

Long & Levit, David R. Harrison and Gerald Z. Marer, San Francisco, for petitioner.

No appearance for respondent.

Di Leonardo, Blake, Kelly, Aguilar & Leal and Robert L. Blake, Sunnyvale, for real parties in interest.

PETERS, Justice.

The basic problem here involved is whether a corporate bond can be filed as security in a libel and slander action. The filing of such a bond, in our opinion, complies with the statutory requirements. Therefore, the requested writ should issue.

The problem arises under the following circumstances. Petitioner Brandt filed an action in respondent court against real parties in interest seeking damages, an injunction, and declaratory relief. The complaint stated causes of action for unfair competition, breach of contract, and libel and slander. To satisfy the requirements of section 830 of the Code of Civil Procedure, requiring an undertaking by plaintiff of $500 in libel or slander cases, appellant filed, prior to the issuance of summons, a $500 corporate bond of the Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland. Real parties in interest moved to dismiss the action on the ground that a corporate bond did not meet the requirements of section 830. They contended that a corporate bond would not suffice in lieu of the two personal sureties referred to in that section. Real parties in interest do not, however, challenge the financial integrity of the corporate bond filed by petitioner, nor of the bonding company.

The trial judge held that a corporate bond was insufficient. His order in this regard states:

'The Court ruling that as a matter of law, as prescribed by CCP § 830 and § 831, a Plaintiff filing a complaint in defamation must file an undertaking in the sum of $500.00 with individual sureties and that as a matter of law neither a $500.00 cash bond nor a $500.00 corporate bond may be filed by Plaintiff,

'IT IS ORDERED that if Plaintiff files an amended complaint which includes a cause of action for defamation he shall file an undertaking in the sum of $500.00 with individual sureties as prescribed in CCP § 830 and § 831 within five days after filing said complaint.'

Petitioner prepared an amended complaint but did not file it. His position is that to have done so would have been a futile act, since the court had indicated that it would dismiss the suit if plaintiff did not find two individual sureties. Petitioner brought this mandamus action to compel the trial court to accept the corporate bond.

Petitioner's contention that a corporate bond will suffice in lieu of the two individual sureties referred to in section 830 is correct. Section 830 provides:

'Before issuing the summons in an action for libel or slander, the clerk shall require a written undertaking on the part of the plaintiff in the sum of five hundred dollars ($500), with at least two competent and sufficient sureties, specifying their occupations and residences, to the effect that if the action is dismissed or the defendant recovers judgment, they will pay the costs and charges awarded against the plaintiff by judgment, in the progress of the action, or on an appeal, not exceeding the sum specified. An action brought without filing the required undertaking shall be dismissed.'

Section 831 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires the individual surety to include with the plaintiff's undertaking an affidavit stating 'that he is a resident and householder or freeholder within the county, and is worth double the amount specified in the undertaking * * *.'

These sections must be read with section 1056 of the Code of Civil Procedure which provides: 'In all cases where an undertaking or bond, with Any number of sureties is authorized or required by any provision of this code, or of any law of this State, any corporate or reciprocal insurer, possessing a certificate of authority from the Insurance Commissioner authorizing it to write surety insurance * * * may become and shall be accepted as security or as sole and sufficient surety upon such undertaking or bond, and such corporate surety shall be subject to all the liabilities and entitled to all the rights of natural persons' (sic) sureties.' (Emphasis added.)

Section 1054a of the Code of Civil Procedure provides in part that 'In all civil cases, wherein an undertaking is required, the party required to furnish such undertaking may, in lieu thereof, deposit' cash or state or federal bearer bonds of the value of the required undertaking. It has recently been held that a cash deposit under this section complies with section 830. (Rogers v. County Bank of Santa Cruz, Cal.App., 61 Cal.Rptr. 879.)

The language of section 1056 could not be more explicit. A valid corporate bond will suffice 'in All cases' where 'any provision' of state law requires an undertaking with 'any number of sureties.'

There are several other sections in the Code of Civil Procedure which require a moving party to post an undertaking with two or more personal sureties. It has uniformly been held--or considered so self-evident as to be assumed by the courts--that under section 1056 a single corporate bond suffices in lieu of personal sureties. Thus, in Carter v. Superior Court, 176 Cal. 752, 754, 169 P. 667, a nonresident plaintiff sued a California defendant, who demanded that plaintiff post security for court costs pursuant to what is now section 1030 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff produced a corporate bond, and the court held, when the issue arose on prohibition, that section 1056 authorized use of a single corporate bond in lieu of the two sureties required by section 1030.

In Williams v. Atchison, etc., Ry. Co., 156 Cal. 140, 103 P. 885, the court held that section 1056 authorized use of a single corporate bond in claim and delivery although another statute (what is now section 512 of the Code of Civil Procedure) provided that the undertaking was to be supported by two or more sureties.

Several decisions indicate that a single corporate bond is, because of section 1056, sufficient to obtain stay of execution of judgment pending appeal, although section 942 of the Code of Civil Procedure would require two or more sureties. (E.g., Fox v. Hale and Norcross S.M. Co., 97 Cal. 353, 32 P. 446; Belle Vista Investment Co. v. Hassen, 218 Cal.App.2d 601, 32 Cal.Rptr. 399; Sandell, Inc. v. Bailey, 193 Cal.App.2d 518, 14 Cal.Rptr. 347; Keefe v. Superior Court, 23 Cal.App. 750, 139 P. 899.) Similarly, Stockton Theatres, Inc. v. Palermo, 47 Cal.2d 469, 304 P.2d 7, upheld the use of a single corporate bond under section 1056 to keep a writ of attachment operative pending an appeal, although section 946 of the Code of Civil Procedure would otherwise require two sureties.

It has also been held that depositing cash, pursuant to section 1054a, entitles a moving party to a writ of attachment even though section 539 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires two or more sureties for the undertaking. (Rowe v. Stoddard, 15 Cal.App.2d 440, 59 P.2d 423; accord, Stewart v. Justice's Court, 7 Cal.App.2d 61, 45 P.2d 424.)

The primary purpose of requiring the plaintiff in a defamation suit to post an undertaking is obviously to give the defendant security for any cost he may be awarded if judgment is in his favor. (Kennaly v. Superior Court, 43 Cal.2d 512, 514, 275 P.2d 1; Becker v. Schmidlin, 153 Cal. 669, 671, 96 P. 280; Bried v. Superior Court, 11 Cal.2d 351, 354, 79 P.2d 1091.) ¹ This purpose is, of course, achieved by a corporate bond as well as by individual sureties. (Cf. Stewart v. Justice's Court, supra, 7 Cal.App.2d 62, 64, 45 P.2d 424.) Indeed, a defendant awarded costs may find it easier to collect from a bonding company than from individual sureties.

Another purpose of section 830 is to discourage defamation actions that might otherwise be hastily filed by plaintiff. The need to post the undertaking impresses upon a party who feels aggrieved the gravity of litigation, tends to engender mature consideration of the propriety of going forward with a lawsuit, and thereby, indirectly, gives some protection to those exercising their right to express opinions. (Shell Oil Co. v. Superior Court, 5 Cal.App.2d 480, 482, 42 P.2d 1049; Shell Oil Co. v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.App.2d 348, 355, 37 P.2d 1078.) ² This purpose too is achieved equally as well if the potential plaintiff must take the time and effort (and expense) of obtaining a bond from a corporate bonding company as opposed to soliciting the financial backing of two friends.

It seems clear both by case law and public policy that petitioner's corporate bond, filed pursuant to section 1056, meets the undertaking requirement of section 830.

Real parties in interest contend that to so construe the statute will work a judicial repeal of section 830 and would defeat what they claim is the true purpose of that statute.

These contentions are based on the following reasoning: Section 830, dealing exclusively with defamation suits, was originally enacted in 1871--1872 (Stats. 1871--1872, ch. 377, § 1, p. 533); section 1056, dealing with undertakings generally, stems from legislation enacted in 1889 (Stats. 1889, ch. 181, § 1, p. 215) and is based on an 1885 statute (Stats. 1885, ch. 131, § 1, p. 114). In such circumstances, argue real parties in interest, the rule of statutory construction stated in McNeil v. Kingsbury, 190 Cal. 406, 409, 213 P. 50, 51, should apply. That decision states: "The law does not favor a repeal by implication, and where two statutes treat the same subject, one being special and the other general, unless they are irreconcilably inconsistent, the latter, though later in date will not be held to have repealed the former, but the special act will prevail in its application to the...