Filed 12/12/05

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

 

 

 

 

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

 

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

 

DIVISION FOUR

 

 

 

JERRY'S SHELL et al.,   Plaintiffs and Appellants,   v.   EQUILON ENTERPRISES, LLC, et al.,   Defendants and Respondents.

B174260   (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC271208)

 

APPEAL from a judgment and an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Malcolm H. Mackey, Judge. Affirmed.

Bleau, Fox & Fong, Thomas P. Bleau, and Nikki Fong for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Fulbright & Jaworski, Richard R. Mainland, and Dinh Ha for Defendants and Respondents.

 

The underlying case was dismissed by the trial court as a sanction for repeated failure to respond to discovery and comply with discovery orders. Several months after terminating sanctions were issued, appellants sought to revive the litigation through a motion for relief from default or dismissal under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b) (section 473(b)). The court denied the motion. We conclude that dismissal was the result of an intentional strategic decision on the part of appellants' counsel, and affirm.

 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Complaint

Appellants Jerry's Shell and 21 others,[1] brought suit against Equilon Enterprises, LLC, doing business as (dba) Shell Oil Products US (Equilon) and certain individuals.[2] The complaint essentially alleged that Equilon, a joint enterprise between Shell and Texaco, developed a plan to convert independent franchise dealers' stations into company-operated stations or put them in the hands of the individual defendants, who were said to be â€