Vaccaro

Vaccaro v. Barry Kaiman

Bad Law
1998 Cal. App. LEXIS 390·63 Cal. App. 2d 761·63 Cal. App. 4th 761·73 Cal. Rptr. 2d 829·98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3270
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 30, 1998Docket Nos. B108182, B111535, B112258California3,908 words

Opinion

Opinion

Vogel, J.

Introduction

Plaintiff and appellant Andra M. Vaccaro brought this action for legal malpractice against defendants and respondents Barry Raiman and the law firm of Lewis, D’Amato, Brisbois & Bisgaard. Plaintiff’s attorney neglected to sign the first amended complaint as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7, subdivision (a). Defendants moved, pursuant to section 436, subdivision (b), that unless the first amended complaint was signed by the time of the hearing on defendants’ motion, the first amended complaint should be stricken in its entirety on the ground it was not filed in conformity with the laws of this state. Although plaintiff’s attorney did sign and file a copy of the first amended complaint before the hearing, the court struck the first amended complaint, without leave to amend, on the ground the attorney had not acted “promptly.” In the same breath, without prior request by defendants or prior notice by the court, the court dismissed plaintiff’s action with prejudice. The court thereafter denied plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration (§ 1008) and relief from default (§ 473). Thereafter, defendants moved that, as a “sanction” under section 128.7,…

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.