What is the legal test for appointing a receiver in a personal injury action?

Under California law, " '[t]he power to appoint a receiver is a delicate one which is exercised sparingly and with caution, and only in an extreme case under such circumstances as demand or require summary relief, and never in a doubtful case or where there is no necessity or occasion for the appointment.' " (Morand v. Superior Court (1974) 38 Cal.App.3d 347, 350.) "It is said by the state's courts that the appointment of a receiver is 'an extraordinary and harsh,' and 'delicate,' and 'drastic,' remedy to be used 'cautiously and only where less onerous remedies would be inadequate or unavailable. . . .' [Citations.] And a party to an action should not be 'subjected to the onerous expense of a receiver, unless . . . his appointment is obviously necessary to the protection of the opposite party.' " (Id. at p. 351.)