Felix v. People of California CA5
F080255
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jun 8, 2021Background
- Felix, a civil detainee at California State Hospital–Coalinga, filed a petition for writ of mandate in February 2014 alleging denial of SVPA treatment and annual evaluations. He verified the petition and attempted service by mailing to the Fresno superior court clerk and Fresno County District Attorney.
- The court received and filed the matter and granted Felix a fee waiver in May 2014. A June 2014 minute entry (not in the record) noted improper service and said petitioner could reset when proper personal service and proof were filed.
- After no activity for years, the court issued an order to show cause in October 2018 and set a December 19, 2018 hearing; Felix did not appear (he says he received no notice) and the court dismissed the action for no appearance.
- Felix (pro se on appeal) filed a § 473(b) motion in February 2019, supported by a declaration stating he never received notice and would have appeared telephonically; the trial court denied relief, relying on Evidence Code § 641’s presumption that properly mailed letters are received and for other procedural reasons.
- The Court of Appeal held the trial court abused its discretion under Elston because Felix’s uncontradicted declaration rebutted the mailed‑letter presumption and satisfied the “very slight evidence” standard, but affirmed because Felix failed to show prejudice: the petition was not shown to have been served within three years and would be subject to mandatory dismissal under §§ 583.210 and 583.250.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 473(b) relief should be granted for dismissal based on failure to appear when plaintiff declares he never received notice | Felix: he never received notice of the Dec. 19, 2018 hearing and would have appeared telephonically; his declaration shows surprise/excusable neglect | Trial court/respondent: notice was mailed to Felix’s address of record; Evidence Code § 641 presumes receipt and plaintiff didn’t rebut it | Court: Felix’s unopposed declaration rebuts the presumption and satisfies Elston’s “very slight evidence” standard; trial court abused discretion in denying § 473 relief |
| Whether the presumption of receipt from Evidence Code § 641 applies unchanged to institutionalized plaintiffs | Felix: institutional mail delivery to patients is not controlled by USPS; declaration rebuts receipt | Trial court: properly mailed notice presumed delivered to Felix’s address of record; presumption unrebutted | Court: once plaintiff denies receipt, the § 641 presumption drops out under Evid. Code § 604; court erred to treat presumption as dispositive, and courts should not infer a separate presumption that the institution delivered mail to the inmate/patient |
| Whether Felix’s § 473(b) application failed procedural requirements (accompanying pleading; noticed motion) | Felix: accompanying-pleading rule in § 473(b) does not apply where dismissal was for failure to appear at a hearing; his initial application was timely | Trial court: denied for not being a properly noticed motion and for lacking proposed pleading | Court: requirement to attach a proposed pleading does not apply to dismissals for failure to appear; the early un‑noticed request was timely for purposes of appeal (court assumed reasonable time) |
| Whether reversal would be prejudicial (i.e., whether denial of § 473 relief requires reversal) given statutes requiring service within 3 years | Felix: argues trial court erred in case administration and should be excused; contends service was proper or court should have appointed counsel / given more notices | Respondent/trial court: dismissal was proper and notice/service defects justify dismissal; mandatory dismissal statutes would apply | Court: Felix failed to show the petition was properly served within three years; mandatory dismissal under §§ 583.210/583.250 would compel dismissal on remand, so any error was harmless and affirmation is required |
Key Cases Cited
- Elston v. City of Turlock, 38 Cal.3d 227 (California Supreme Court) (very slight evidence standard; liberally grant § 473 relief to favor decisions on the merits)
- Zamora v. Clayborn Contracting Group, Inc., 28 Cal.4th 249 (California Supreme Court) (§ 473 is discretionary but limited by legal principles)
- Bear Creek Master Assn. v. Edwards, 130 Cal.App.4th 1470 (Court of Appeal) (once receipt is denied, the mailed‑letter presumption is displaced)
- Bonzer v. City of Huntington Park, 20 Cal.App.4th 1474 (Court of Appeal) (unimpeached declarations of nonreceipt justify § 473 relief)
- Shamblin v. Brattain, 44 Cal.3d 474 (California Supreme Court) (abuse‑of‑discretion test when relief is granted; contrasted with Elston)
- Rodriguez v. Brill, 234 Cal.App.4th 715 (Court of Appeal) (rationale for requiring accompanying pleading with § 473(b) motions)
- Blank v. Kirwan, 39 Cal.3d 311 (California Supreme Court) (reversal requires both abuse of discretion and prejudice)
- Denham v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.3d 557 (California Supreme Court) (appellant’s burden to show error was prejudicial)