He

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s broad-based attack on the court’s sanctions order starts by claiming that none of the referenced discovery orders was valid. Were she to fail in that endeavor, she also asserts that none was violated. In the event we conclude that plaintiff committed sanctionable misconduct, she urges us to set aside the sanctions order because the court neither gave her proper

Subsequent undesignated statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure. 3 notice of all the grounds for imposing sanctions, nor considered less severe alternatives to dismissal. Finally, plaintiff requests that we review the trial court’s denial of her section 473 motion. Resolving these issues requires that we evaluate the trial court’s exercise of discretion for abuse. (Britts v. Superior Court (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 1112, 1123 (Britts) [discovery orders]; Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 992 (Doppes) [selection of a discovery sanction]; Henderson v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 215, 230 [order denying motion for discretionary relief under § 473, subdivision (b)].) “The trial court’s findings of fact are reviewed for substantial…