Legal Opinion
Rodriguez v. Brill
California Court of Appeal
Decided February 20, 2015No. F068518PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
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…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Lungren v. DeukmejianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
- Zamora v. Clayborn Contracting Group, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2002
- Johnson v. Pratt & Whitney Canada, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1994
- Munoz v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
- People v. LopezCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Gee v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2016
- Chung & Associates, LLC v. Mendoza CA2/1California Court of Appeal · 2021
- Dollase v. Wanu Water Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2023
- Felix v. People of California CA5California Court of Appeal · 2021
- Gee v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2016
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.