Carli v. Superior Court
Decision Date | 16 February 1984 |
Citation | 199 Cal.Rptr. 583,152 Cal.App.3d 1095 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | George A. CARLI, et al., Petitioners, v. SUPERIOR COURT etc., COUNTY OF IMPERIAL, Respondent, Joseph FORNASERA etc., Real Party in Interest. Civ. 31455. |
Maynard O. Kartvedt and Kartvedt, Smith & Doering, El Cajon, for petitioners.
C. Breck Jones and Jenks & Jones, Sacramento, for real party in interest.
On August 10, 1983, counsel for real party mailed a set of requests for admissions and two sets of interrogatories to counsel for petitioner. The law clerk for petitioner's counsel prepared rough answers to the interrogatories; counsel dictated that which he wanted typed and promptly forgot the matter believing all had been attended to.
On September 21, 1983, petitioner's counsel received the letter of September 19, 1983, stating real party deemed his requests to be admitted. A search ensued, a missing tape was found and the following day the response to the request for admissions was typed and mailed. During the period in question, the office of petitioner's counsel was in turmoil. One of the firm's three attorneys had just left the firm, leaving a case load of some 150 cases. Counsel was preparing for jury trial in San Diego and two appeals were in their final stages of preparation. In additional to the two full-time secretaries, six temporary secretaries were hired consecutively over two and a half months. The daughter of one of the full-time secretaries, the wife of one of the associates, the secretary from next door, all came in to help. A new associate was hired; another law clerk was engaged. The missing tape was found under a stack of papers supposedly of nonurgent office filings.
More than a week passed after mailing the response to the requests for admissions and petitioner heard nothing. He telephoned real party but was unable to make contact; he wrote him a letter explaining the circumstances causing the default. At a deposition the next week, petitioner asked real party if he would stipulate to relieving petitioner of the oversight. Real party said he would think about it. Thus, on October 20, 1983, having heard nothing, petitioner prepared a formal motion to set aside the default. The next day counsel in San Diego was served personally, while counsel in Sacramento and the court were served by mail. That same day, October 21, 1983, petitioner received a letter from real party declining to stipulate. The superior court in El Centro stamped the motion to set aside default on October 26, some 35 days after the letter deeming the requests admitted had been received.
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 20331, subdivision (a), reads in part:
(Emphasis added.)
Here, petitioner filed its motion for excuse from default under section 473, 35 days after service of the notice the admissions were to be deemed admitted. He argues this is permissible under section 1013, subdivision (a), which in fact provides:
(Emphasis added.)
The section extending the time to respond is all-encompassing save for the stated exceptions. It states that any act or...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Huh v. Wang
...relief include law firm break-up "resulting in the work of 5 attorneys being redistributed to 3"]; Carli v. Superior Court (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 1095, 1097, 199 Cal.Rptr. 583 [factors justifying relief include law firm's loss of "one of [its] three attorneys" who left "a case load of some 1......
-
National Diversified Services, Inc. v. Bernstein
...328.) Even adding ten days due to mailing of the notice of entry of default (Code Civ.Proc., § 1013; see Carli v. Superior Court (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 1095, 1098-1099, 199 Cal.Rptr. 583), the motion was too late. The default of defendant was entered on November 26, 1982, and his motion to v......
-
Brochtrup v. Intep
...This is particularly true where relief is sought from a failure to respond to requests for admissions. (Carli v. Superior Court (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 1095, 1099, 199 Cal.Rptr. 583.) Moreover, any doubts in applying section 473 must be resolved in favor of the party seeking relief from defau......
-
Elston v. City of Turlock
...party seeking relief from default (Waite v. Southern Pacific Co. (1923) 192 Cal. 467, 470-471, 221 P. 204; Carli v. Superior Court (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 1095, 1099, 199 Cal.Rptr. 583 [in the context of deemed admissions § 473 should be applied liberally "so cases can be tried on the merits"......