CALIFORNIA FAMILY LAW
...Procedure After Trial/Hearing
......Attack on Judgments/Orders
.........Motion to Vacate (CCP §473)
............Excusable/Inexcusable Neglect
 10 Cards On This Topic:
  • It is excusable neglect for office staff to misplace requests for admission which causes failure to respond, when admission would defeat entire cause of action.
  • Repeated violations of discovery statutes and orders do not constitute excusable neglect.
  • Attorney's declaration under Code Civ. Proc §473 to rectify mistake inadmissible as admission of party opponent in subsequent malpractice action.
  • D, who defaulted on tentative settlement and then failed to file answer after several warnings, has not proven mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect.
  • No mandatory §473 relief where attorney not representing defendants at time default was entered.
  • Attorney who assumes, without basis, that opposition has granted his request for extension to file pleading is guilty of inexcusable neglect.
  • Excusable neglect may be result of disability.
  • "Press of business" which produced failure to answer complaint is not excusable neglect.
  • Counsel under no legal duty to notify opposing party's known counsel prior to taking default.
  • Motion based on insurance carrier's failure to file answer must show carrier's negligence to be excusable.


    •