Rodriguez v. Brill
234 Cal. App. 4th 715
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Rodriguez sued Brill; the action was dismissed as a terminating sanction for failure to respond to discovery and to comply with a court order.
- A motion to compel responses was granted; Rodriguez failed to respond and the court sanctioned dismissal.
- Rodriguez moved for relief from the dismissal under CCP 473(b); she later served verified discovery responses.
- The appellate court previously affirmed the terminating sanction but remanded to consider mandatory relief due to attorney fault.
- On remand, the trial court denied relief; the current appeal seeks reversal and relief under 473(b).
- The court holds that terminating sanctions are subject to mandatory relief and articulates standards for form, causation, and substantial compliance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 473(b) mandatory relief covers dismissals as terminating sanctions | Rodriguez contends mandatory relief applies to terminating sanctions | Brill contends it does not apply to terminating sanctions | Yes, 473(b) covers dismissals entered as terminating sanctions |
| Must the court make explicit findings when denying mandatory relief | Explicit findings are required to justify denial | Implicit findings may suffice | Explicit findings are required for proper review |
| Does client fault bar relief when the attorney's conduct contributed to the sanction | No, relief may be available if client fault is not shown as sole cause | Yes, client fault can bar relief | Record shows client fault was not demonstrated as a causal factor; relief allowed to proceed |
| Is application for relief in proper form if accompanied by verified discovery responses | Verified responses are not required with the relief motion | Verified responses must accompany the motion | In proper form if verified responses are served by hearing date; substantial compliance suffices |
| Should relief be granted or remanded for further proceedings on relief and fees | Relief should be granted and fees awarded | Remand needed to determine appropriate relief and fees | Reversed; remand for grant of relief and fee-shifting order; each side bears own appellate costs |
Key Cases Cited
- Zamora v. Clayborn Contracting Group, Inc., 28 Cal.4th 249 (Cal. Supreme Court 2002) (remedial construction of section 473(b) to liberally apply)
- SJP Limited Partnership v. City of Los Angeles, 136 Cal.App.4th 511 (Cal. App. Dist. 2 2006) (purpose of 473(b) to relieve innocent client of attorney fault)
- Carmel, Ltd. v. Tavoussi, 175 Cal.App.4th 393 (Cal. App. Dist. 2 2009) (application for mandatory relief may be in proper form with accompanying discovery responses; substantial compliance allowed)
- Aldrich v. San Fernando Valley Lumber Co., 170 Cal.App.3d 725 (Cal. App. Dist. 2 1985) (equates dismissal for failure to comply with interrogatories to default judgment)
- Johnson v. Pratt & Whitney Canada, Inc., 28 Cal.App.4th 613 (Cal. App. Dist. 1 1994) (require explicit finding when denying relief; discusses factual findings sufficiency)
- Lang v. Hochman, 77 Cal.App.4th 1225 (Cal. App. Dist. 2 2000) (discusses whether client can be entirely innocent for mandatory relief)