Henderson v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
113 Cal. Rptr. 3d 692, 2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 1368, 187 Cal.App.4th 215 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The mandatory relief provision of California Code of Civil Procedure § 473(b), which requires a court to vacate a default, default judgment, or dismissal based on an attorney's affidavit of fault, does not apply to summary judgments. Discretionary relief from a summary judgment under § 473(b) is only available for 'excusable' neglect, which does not include an attorney's failure to supervise staff or to act diligently upon discovering a problem.
Facts:
- Susan Henderson sued her former employer, Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (PG&E), for employment discrimination.
- Henderson's attorney, Rod McClelland, assigned the task of preparing the opposition to PG&E's motion for summary judgment to his paralegal more than four weeks before its due date.
- The paralegal was scheduled to leave for an Alaskan cruise on Friday, September 5, 2008, the last business day before the opposition was due on Monday, September 8.
- On Thursday, September 4, the paralegal took the majority of the case file home without McClelland's consent to complete the opposition.
- On Friday morning, the paralegal informed McClelland via voicemail that her computer had crashed, she had taken the entire file with her on the cruise, and she had made arrangements to have the documents e-mailed to an attorney service for filing.
- On the due date, Monday, September 8, McClelland learned that the attorney service had never spoken to the paralegal and that the opposition documents were not properly filed.
- McClelland was unable to contact the paralegal as she was on the cruise without cell phone access.
Procedural Posture:
- Susan Henderson sued PG&E in a California superior court (trial court).
- PG&E filed a motion for summary judgment.
- Henderson's attorney filed an incomplete and untimely opposition to the summary judgment motion.
- Henderson filed an ex parte application to continue the summary judgment hearing, which the trial court denied.
- The trial court struck Henderson's late-filed opposition and granted summary judgment in favor of PG&E.
- The trial court entered judgment against Henderson.
- Henderson filed a motion for a new trial, which the trial court denied.
- Henderson filed a motion to vacate the summary judgment under § 473(b), which the trial court denied in a postjudgment order.
- Henderson (appellant) appealed the trial court's order denying her motion to vacate the judgment to the California Court of Appeal, with PG&E as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does California Code of Civil Procedure § 473(b) provide mandatory relief from a summary judgment based on an attorney's affidavit of fault, and if not, does an attorney's failure to supervise a paralegal and act diligently constitute excusable neglect for discretionary relief?
Opinions:
Majority - Gomes, J.
No. The mandatory relief provision of California Code of Civil Procedure § 473(b) does not apply to summary judgments, and the attorney's conduct in failing to supervise a paralegal and take immediate corrective action does not constitute excusable neglect for discretionary relief. Regarding mandatory relief, the court adopted the reasoning of English v. IKON Business Solutions, Inc., holding that the plain language of the statute limits such relief to a 'default,' 'default judgment,' or 'dismissal.' A summary judgment is none of these; it is an adjudication on the merits based on the evidence presented. Regarding discretionary relief, the court found attorney McClelland's neglect was inexcusable. The standard for excusable neglect is whether a reasonably prudent person might have made the same mistake. McClelland had a professional duty to supervise his staff, and upon learning of the problem on the Friday before the deadline, he gambled on his paralegal's remote filing plan instead of immediately seeking an extension from the court or opposing counsel. This conduct fell below the professional standard of care and was not excusable.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the split among California appellate courts by siding with the narrow, textualist interpretation of § 473(b)'s mandatory relief provision, confining its application strictly to defaults, default judgments, and dismissals. It reinforces that summary judgment is a proceeding on the merits, preventing attorneys from using the 'affidavit of fault' as an automatic escape hatch for failing to properly oppose such motions. The ruling also clarifies the high bar for discretionary relief, underscoring that delegation of critical tasks without adequate supervision and failure to act decisively when problems arise constitutes inexcusable professional negligence, not an excusable mistake.
