In Schneider v. Schimmels (1967) 256 Cal. App. 2d 366, the plaintiff had served the summons and complaint in her first action on the defendant on a timely basis but had failed to file the complaint with the court within 10 days of serving the summons, as required by the pertinent rules of Colorado procedure. (Schneider v. Schimmels, supra, 256 Cal. App. 2d at pp. 368-369.) After the defendant had moved to California, the plaintiff filed a second action in Colorado which was permitted to go forward by the trial court but was dismissed by the Colorado Supreme Court on a writ of prohibition due to lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendant. (Id. at p. 369.) By the time the plaintiff filed her third action against the defendant in California, the statute of limitations had expired. Notwithstanding the plaintiff's procedural mistakes, the California Court of Appeal held that Code of Civil Procedure section 355 applied to save the plaintiff's California action from the limitations bar because the California action was filed within one year after the Colorado Supreme Court issued its writ of prohibition. (Schneider, at p. 372.)