Legal Opinion

Noceti v. Whorton

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 18, 2014No. C071317Published

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

BUTZ, J.

In this appeal we conclude that properly noticed plaintiffs who failed to appear for trial because their attorney miscalendared the date—a trial at which the court granted judgment of $0 to the appearing defendant after reviewing the entire file—are not entitled to mandatory relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b) (hereafter, section 473(b)). Such a judgment is not a “dismissal” against plaintiffs for which mandatory relief applies. We also remand this matter to the trial court for its consideration of discretionary relief under section 473(b).

FACTUAL…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Yeap v. LeakeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1997
  2. Peltier v. McCloud River RailroadCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
  3. English v. Ikon Business Solutions, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2001
  4. Vandermoon v. SanwongCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
  5. Hossain v. HossainCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API