Shapiro

Shapiro v. Clark

Bad Law
164 Cal. App. 4th 1128·2008 Cal. App. LEXIS 1054·80 Cal. Rptr. 3d 398
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 15, 2008H030063California6,614 words

Opinion

Opinion

Rushing, J.

Pamela W. Clark appeals from a default judgment and an order denying relief from that judgment unless she posts bond in an amount to secure payment of some $300,000 in compensatory damages plus $1.5 million in punitive damages. She contends that the trial court should have granted relief without conditions. Respondents Mark D. Shapiro and GoGuys, Inc. (collectively, Shapiro), contend that the motion for relief should have been denied outright, and that the conditions are proper. We hold that given appellant’s compelling showing of good cause for the minimal neglect reflected in her default, the court would have abused its discretion had it denied relief. We further hold that while the court acted permissibly in conditioning relief on appellant’s furnishing an undertaking for compensatory damages, it abused its discretion by requiring security for punitive damages. Accordingly we will modify the order by reducing the amount of security and affirm the order as modified. We will also dismiss appellant’s attempted appeal from the underlying default judgment, although that dismissal is inconsequential in the present circumstances.

Background

Prior to the commencement of this…

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.