Usher v. Cal. State Polytechnic Univ.
Filed 8/9/06 Usher v. Cal. State Polytechnic Univ. CA2/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 TWO
| RUTH M. USHER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA STATE POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY et al., Defendants and Respondents. | B186776 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KC042130) |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Conrad R. Aragon, Judge. Reversed and remanded.
Law Offices of Sandra H. Castro and Sandra H. Castro; Mazur & Mazur, Janice R. Mazur and William E. Mazur, Jr., for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, Alan R. Zuckerman and William Archer for Defendants and Respondents The Board of Trustees of the California State University and Fred D. Henderson, Jr.
Anne Giese and Catherine Kennedy for Defendant and Respondent California State Employees Association.
* * * * * *
This is appellant Ruth M. Usher's second appeal regarding the dismissal of her complaint with prejudice for her failure to serve the complaint in accordance with rule 201.7 of the California Rules of Court (rule 201.7) and her failure to comply with the court's order to close the pleadings. In her prior appeal, designated case No. B177825 (Usher I), we affirmed the trial court's denial of her motion to vacate the dismissal under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b), finding that appellant was not entitled to either mandatory or discretionary relief. Appellant now appeals directly from the order of dismissal.[1] She contends the trial court lacked authority to dismiss her complaint when her counsel, and not she, was responsible for the delay in effecting service of process and that lesser sanctions had already been effective in bringing about service. We agree and reverse the order of dismissal.
DISCUSSION[2]
I. Standard of Review
â€
