Minick

Minick v. City of Petaluma

Bad Law
2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 739·207 Cal. Rptr. 3d 350·3 Cal. App. 5th 15
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 2, 2016A143187California7,960 words

Opinion

Opinion

Streeter, J.

—Alter the trial court granted summary judgment for the City of Petaluma (the City) in this personal injury case, plaintiff Christopher Minick (Minick) moved for discretionary relief from the judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b), on grounds of “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” His attorney, Joshua Watson, submitted a declaration in support of the motion explaining that, at the time he prepared Minick’s summary judgment opposition papers, he was suffering from a serious illness for which he was under heavy medication. Although he was unaware of it at the time, Watson told the court, cognitive impairment caused by a combination of his illness and his medicated state led him to overlook readily available evidence. The court granted the requested relief, finding excusable neglect, and the City now appeals. In deference to the trial court’s broad discretion on this type of motion, we shall affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Minick’s Lawsuit and the Grant of Summary Judgment Against Him

While riding in the Holstein 100, a noncompetitive charity bicycling event held as a fundraiser for West Marin Senior Services, Minick fell from…

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.