In In re Marriage of Newman (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 846, a husband and wife filed separate actions for dissolution of their marriage. The husband filed an action in Georgia in which the only relief sought was a judgment of dissolution. The wife thereafter filed an action in California in which she sought both dissolution of the marriage and spousal support. The wife did not appear in the Georgia action and the husband obtained a judgment of dissolution from the Georgia court. The husband then successfully moved to quash the California action under section 4908 on the ground that the Georgia action was filed first and the wife did not timely challenge the jurisdiction of the Georgia court. (In re Marriage of Newman, supra, at p. 848.) The Court of Appeal held that section 4908 did not apply because an out-of-state proceeding which divests a California court of jurisdiction under the statute "must be a proceeding for support, or at least a proceeding in which an adjudication of the support issue is sought." (Id. at p. 850.) Thus, "a California court, which otherwise has jurisdiction over the issues and the parties, is not deprived of jurisdiction to award spousal support by the pendency of a proceeding in another state that does not address that issue." (Id . at p. 851.) Because the Georgia action solely dissolved the marriage and did not raise any issue regarding spousal or child support, section 4908 did not preclude the California court from exercising its jurisdiction to establish a support order. (Ibid.)