Mendoza

California Casualty Indemnity Insurance v. Mendoza

Good Law
36 Cal. App. 4th 678·42 Cal. Rptr. 2d 258
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 29, 1995B086933California945 words

Opinion

Opinion

Stone, J.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering dismissal of this case after the appellant, the California Casualty Indemnity Insurance Company (the Company), failed to appear both at the case management conference and at the hearing on an order to show cause (OSC) regarding dismissal. We affirm.

Facts

On January 4, 1994, the Company filed a complaint seeking recovery in subrogation for uninsured motorist benefits it paid to its insured, Denise Fern Carlson Hapeman, for injuries she sustained in an automobile accident with respondents, Saldino Centino Mendoza et al.

On March 10, 1994, the clerk of the trial court entered the default of all respondents. The trial court set a case management conference (CMC) regarding status for June 3, 1994. In response to the notice of the CMC, the Company filed a memorandum of points and authorities requesting the court not to dismiss this action. The Company stated that it preferred to allow six months to elapse “to avoid a waste of time and expense in seeking a [default] judgment which could ultimately be set aside” pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473.

The Company did not appear at the CMC hearing set for June…

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.