California Laws|Section 917.65.

917.65.

The perfecting of an appeal shall not stay enforcement of a right to attach order unless an undertaking is given. The undertaking shall be in the amount specified in the right to attach order as the amount to be secured by the attachment. The undertaking shall be on condition that if the right to attach order is not reversed and the plaintiff recovers judgment in the action in which the right to attach order was issued, the appellant shall pay the amount of the judgment, together with any interest which may have accrued. The liability on the undertaking may be enforced if the judgment is not paid within 30 days after it
becomes final. If a surety on the undertaking pays the judgment, either with or without action, the surety is substituted to the rights of the creditor and is entitled to control, enforce, and satisfy the judgment, in all respects as if the surety had recovered the judgment.

(Added by Stats. 1983, Ch. 155, Sec. 22.5. Effective June 30, 1983. Operative July 1, 1983, by Sec. 32 of Ch. 155.)

View Latest Rulings

EIGHTEEN, LLC VS CALIFIT, INC., ET AL.

Code of Civil Procedure section 917.65 states the following: The perfecting of an appeal shall not stay enforcement of a right to attach order unless an undertaking is given. The undertaking shall be in the amount specified in the right to attach order as the amount to be secured by the attachment.

Name

EIGHTEEN, LLC VS CALIFIT, INC., ET AL.

Case No.

20VECV01419

Hearing

Jul 26, 2021

County

Los Angeles County, CA

ABERNETHY VS. WAYNE A HAGENDORF AS TRUSTEE OF THE BUTCH TRUST, AND AS GENERAL PARTNER OF THE LAW OFFICES OF HAGENDORF & ABERNETHY

No undertaking was given by Wayne A.Hagendorf as Trustee of the Butch Trust; and therefore, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 917.65, it does not appear a stay is required. MP to submit the order and give notice.

Name

ABERNETHY VS. WAYNE A HAGENDORF AS TRUSTEE OF THE BUTCH TRUST, AND AS GENERAL PARTNER OF THE LAW OFFICES OF HAGENDORF & ABERNETHY

Case No.

30-2017-00940100

Hearing

Feb 09, 2021

Judge Hon. John C. GASTELUM

County

Orange County, CA

View More Rulings

Previous Section

Section 917.6.

Next Section

Section 917.7.

View Latest Documents

(No Document Name Available)

1 page

® SURETEC INSURANCE COMPANY IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FI IN AND FOR COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Sterior KILED GULIE PARK, etc., etal SEP 08 2022 Shet , Caney Executive cv ay E tive Officer Clerk op 2 VE. Galicia Deputy , Case No. 22STCV42599 UNDERTAKING UNDER SECTION 917.65 C.c.P SURETEC INSURANCE COMPANY vs. PLAINTIFF(S) 3555 Garden Grove Blvd. SUITE 275 Westminster CA 92683 NMSI INC ° DEFENDANT(S) WHEREAS, NMSI INC., Defendant desires to give an undertaking for A STAY…

Case Name

(No Case Name Available)

THE FRONT STREET BUILDING LLC VS. TELMATE LLC et al CONTRACT/WARRANTY document preview

REPLY MEMO OF P & A IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR ADDITIONAL RIGHT TO ATTA…

8 pages

MINE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Oct-01-2013 02:40 pm Case Number: CGC-13-532109 Filing Date: Oct-01-2013 02:40 pm Filed by: CAROL BALISTRERI Juke Box: 001 Image: 04222347 REPLY THE FRONT STREET BUILDING LLC VS. TELMATE LLC et al 001004222347 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.oOo ON DH & w L. PETER RYAN (SBN 134291) pete@mbvlaw.com suk, L jeck@mbvlaweom ON 207709) eis Paice MEY LAW LLP OCT 9 1…

Case Name THE FRONT STREET BUILDING LLC VS. TELMATE LLC et al

Case # (Subscribe to View)

Case Filed

Jun 13, 2013

County

San Francisco County, CA

Filed Date

Oct 01, 2013