Janetsky

Janetsky v. Avis

Caution
176 Cal. App. 3d 799·222 Cal. Rptr. 342
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 16, 1986E001432California4,280 words

Opinion

Opinion

Havens, J.

Plaintiff Roger Janetsky (dba Mutual Mortgage Co., and referred to hereafter as plaintiff) appeals from an order denying him relief from default, which occurred when plaintiff failed to respond to a request for admissions, and from the grant of defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

Issues on Appeal

Plaintiff asserts that the issues presented by this appeal are:

(1) Were the statutory notice requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 2033, subdivision (a) complied with by placing the statutory warning regarding failure to respond at the end of the request for admissions rather than at the conclusion of the request portion of the document? Plaintiff claims that placement of the warning at the end of the request entitles him to relief from default.

(2) Was the notice of default prematurely served on plaintiff and if so, is plaintiff thus entitled to relief from default under section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure?

(3) Is plaintiff entitled to relief under the court’s inherent equitable power?

Defendants counter by declaring that there is but one simple issue presented: Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying the motion for relief and in granting…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.