Nixon Peabody LLP v. Superior Court
230 Cal. App. 4th 818
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Real parties in interest sued in LA Superior Court alleging false disclosures in a private placement; petitioner represented real parties in the transaction.
- Real parties filed nearly identical actions in ED Texas and CD California in April 2012; litigation pursued across multiple courts.
- In November 2012, real parties dismissed the LA action and the Texas action, leaving only the CD California action and the federal action pending.
- Petitioner sought to dismiss the Texas case under the federal two-dismissal rule, and the District Court granted dismissal with prejudice; Fifth Circuit affirmed.
- In October 2013 real parties moved to vacate their voluntary dismissal in the LA action arguing lack of informed consent due to attorney Hull’s advice.
- The trial court voided the voluntary dismissal as void under CCP 473(d); on appeal, the court held the dismissal was not void and the trial court erred in vacating it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the voluntary dismissal is void under CCP 473(d). | Real parties argue Hull’s mistaken advice voids the dismissal. | Nixon Peabody contends consent was informed; error in advice does not void the dismissal. | Dismissal not void; trial court erred in vacating it. |
Key Cases Cited
- Romadka v. Hoge, 232 Cal.App.3d 1231 (1991) (abuse of discretion standard for setting aside a dismissal; unauthorized disposition cases cited)
- Cruz v. Fagor America, Inc., 146 Cal.App.4th 488 (2007) (voidness of void orders; interpretation of CCP §473(d))
- Linsk v. Linsk, 70 Cal.2d 272 (1969) (attorney acted beyond authority; void disposition context)
- Talley v. Valuation Counselors Group, Inc., 191 Cal.App.4th 132 (2010) (section 473(d) discretionary language; void vs. voidable)