Rodriguez

Rodriguez v. Brill

Good Law
184 Cal. Rptr. 3d 265·2015 Cal. App. LEXIS 160·234 Cal. App. 4th 715
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 20, 2015F068518California6,296 words

Opinion

Opinion

Franson, J.

Plaintiff Marta Rodriguez appeals from the denial of her motion for relief from judgment, which was brought under the mandatory provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b) (section 473(b)). The judgment was entered in favor of defendant Thomas Brill after the trial court dismissed Rodriguez’s complaint as a sanction for her failure to respond to discovery requests and to comply with an order compelling her to do so.

In an earlier appeal, we concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it granted a terminating sanction and affirmed the judgment of dismissal. (Rodriguez v. Brill (Feb. 1, 2013, F063770) [nonpub. opn.].) However, we did not reach the question whether Rodriguez was entitled to relief from the judgment of dismissal under the mandatory provisions of section 473(b), for inexcusable failures of her attorney. We remanded to permit the trial court to reconsider the motion for relief. The trial court did so and its new order denying the motion is the subject of this appeal.

The parties’ contentions present conflicting interpretations of the mandatory relief provision in section 473(b). We resolve those issues by adopting the…

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.