Urban Wildlands Group, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles
10 Cal. App. 5th 993
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Urban Wildlands Group filed a mandate petition and declaratory/injunctive relief complaint challenging CEQA exemption for a lighting project.
- Defendant City of LA Bureau of Street Lighting certified the administrative record; Plaintiff did not lodge the record by the court-ordered deadline.
- Trial court denied the petition on merits because the record was not lodged and entered judgment July 21, 2015.
- Plaintiff moved under CCP 473(b) for discretionary and mandatory relief, supported by attorney Naficy’s affidavit admitting neglect.
- Trial court granted mandatory relief, vacating the judgment on February 3, 2016, and denied discretionary relief.
- On appeal, the issue is whether CCP 473(b) mandatory relief applies to a judgment that is not a default, default judgment, or dismissal; the court holds it does not.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the judgment qualifies as a default, default judgment, or dismissal under 473(b)? | Urban Wildlands argues the judgment is the functional equivalent of a dismissal. | City contends the judgment is not a default/default judgment/dismissal. | Not a default/default judgment/dismissal; 473(b) inapplicable. |
| Whether English controls interpretation over Avila and Hock for 473(b) relief? | Plaintiff seeks broader application like Avila/Hock. | Defendant favors English's limited reading. | Court adopts English; disapproves Avila and Hock. |
| Whether the trial court erred in treating the judgment as a nullity due to record-lodging issues? | Granting relief was necessary to address failure to lodge the record. | Judgment remains merits-based; relief not justified. | Issue resolved by core holding: 473(b) not applicable; nullity rationale rejected. |
Key Cases Cited
- English v. IKON Business Solutions, Inc., 94 Cal.App.4th 130 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (summary judgment not a default/dismissal for 473(b) purposes)
- Avila v. Chua, 57 Cal.App.4th 860 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) (expansive view of 473(b) relief rejected by this opinion)
- In re Marriage of Hock & Gordon-Hock, 80 Cal.App.4th 1438 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (expands 473(b) relief before being disapproved herein)
- Zamora v. Clayborn Contracting Group, Inc., 28 Cal.4th 249 (Cal. 2002) (discretionary relief discussed; mandatory relief inapplicable here)
- Vandermoon v. Sanwong, 142 Cal.App.4th 315 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (restricts 473(b) to default/dismissal scenarios)