Pinedo v. Pinedo

Filed 6/1/06 Pinedo v. Pinedo CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, John P. Farrell, Judge. Reversed.

Law Offices of Richard A. Marcus and Richard A. Marcus for Defendants and Appellants.

Law Offices of Galindo & Fox and Martin E. Stearn for Plaintiffs and Respondents.

Appellants Ignacio Pinedo and Carmen Pinedo appeal from an order vacating a dismissal entered as a sanction due to a series of discovery violations by the attorney for respondents Patricio Pinedo and Jose Cruz Pinedo.[1] The trial court purported to act under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b) (section 473(b)), which permits relief to be granted from defaults and dismissals caused by mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect or, under some circumstances, when caused by attorney fault. We conclude that the underlying conduct did not involve excusable neglect and that the alternate ground for relief does not apply because the conduct was intentional. We therefore reverse.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Underlying Allegations

Respondents brought suit for quiet title and cancellation of deeds against Manuel Pinedo[2] in July 2003. Respondents were represented by attorney Craig A. Fox. Jose and Patricio are father and son and Manuel is Jose's son and Patricio's brother. According to the allegations of the complaint, in 1990, Manuel and Maria Thomas[3] took initial title to the disputed property in their own names â€