Hopkins & Carley v. Gens
200 Cal. App. 4th 1401
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- H&C obtained an arbitration award against Gens for unpaid legal fees; June 2007 judgment entered on the award.
- Gens, proceeding in propria persona, moved under CCP section 473(b) six months later to set aside the judgment, alleging mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect but offered no substantiation; asserted a new defense based on alleged ethical violations by H&C.
- Trial court denied relief from judgment and granted sanctions; court found no colorable basis for relief and imposed $9,000 sanctions on Gens and his attorneys.
- Gens appealed the order denying relief and the sanctions order; a related nonpub. opinion (Gens I) had affirmed service and attachment rulings; counsel later substituted as needed.
- The appellate court held the section 473(b) relief was properly denied for lack of a sufficient excuse and due diligence, and sanctions were warranted for an improper and frivolous motion.
- The sanction order addressed the motion’s improper purpose, lack of factual support, and the costs incurred defending against the meritless motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gens entitles relief from judgment under CCP 473(b) | Gens claims excusable neglect due to newly discovered defenses. | Relief barred by procedural rules, lack of concrete excusable neglect, and delay; he had opportunity to present defense earlier. | Relief denied |
| Whether new conflict-of-interest/ethics defense supports relief | Defense based on ethical violations nullifies fee recovery. | Gens had knowledge and failed to substantiate or timely pursue; defense not credible. | No relief based on disputed defense |
| Whether fraud grounds support relief from judgment | Fraud by H&C alleged as basis for relief. | No extrinsic fraud; allegations do not prevent fair hearing. | Fraud ground rejected |
| Whether sanctions under CCP 128.7 were proper | Motion filed for improper purpose and unsupported legal contentions. | Sanctions violate client rights and are excessive. | Sanctions affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Hearn v. Howard, 177 Cal.App.4th 1193 (2009) (burden of proof for relief under 473(b))
- Torbitt v. State of California, 161 Cal.App.3d 860 (1984) (reasonable diligence and research required for relief)
- Kendall v. Barker, 197 Cal.App.3d 619 (1988) (necessity to specify actual mistake and excuse)
- Daher v. American Pipe & Constr. Co., 257 Cal.App.2d 816 (1968) (policy favoring merits; excusable neglect limits)
- Huh v. Wang, 158 Cal.App.4th 1406 (2008) (delay in seeking relief; standard of proof for diligence)