 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Wilson v. Duke10/31/2002
earing and were represented by counsel; the court's order denying appellants' motion recites that the court "hear oral argument from all parties." This is not such a complete failure to respond or oppose a motion as to be the procedural equivalent of a default.
Rather, the decision to oppose summary judgment with a request for a continuance and counsel's decisions regarding discovery were decisions related to litigation strategy. When counsel finally obtained decedent's medical records, he concluded that he wanted nothing more to do with the case. Appellants sought a continuance so that counsel could withdraw and to permit time for appellants to attempt to find a new attorney with a better opinion of their case.
Courts have repeatedly found that mandatory relief under section 473, subdivision (b) should not provide attorneys with a " `perfect escape hatch' for any and all tactical errors and mistaken judgments." (See, e.g., Gotschall v. Daley, supra, 96 Cal.App.4th at p. 484; English v. IKON Business Solutions, Inc., supra, 94 Cal.App.4th at p. 141; Leader v. Health Industries of America, Inc., supra, 89 Cal.App.4th at p. 619.) Counsel erred in his apparent belief that he could obtain repeated continuances of the hearing on the summary judgment motions. This is not the type of attorney "mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect" for which relief is mandated under section 473, subdivision (b).
III. DISPOSITION
The judgments are affirmed.
We concur:
Marchiano, P.J.
Swager, J.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|