Campbell v. Campbell

Filed 3/9/06 Campbell v. Campbell CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 FIVE

Continue………..From Part I……..

C. Defendant's Reply to the Opposition to the Motion to Set Aside

Defendant's reply to the opposition to the motion to set aside the default judgment argued that defendant was not negligent in his handling of this case. Defendant believed his cross-complaint had been dismissed, but did not understand that he defaulted on plaintiff's action. Defendant's interrogatory responses were consistent with defendant's belief he was complying with discovery as he worked with Mikulicich. He responded promptly to Mikulicich and handwrote responses for Mikulicich.

Defendant declared that the other judicial actions to which he had failed to respond were either unrelated to this case or the fault of others, including Mikulicich. Defendant believed he was complying with the discovery requests. At the time of the May 10, 2004 telephone call to Mikulicich, defendant believed his cross-complaint was dismissed, but not that judgment was awarded by default to plaintiff. Defendant was not told by Mikulicich about the discovery compliance hearings. Defendant denied an intent to delay the proceedings and specifically denied the allegation in Saridakis's declaration.

D. Ruling of the Trial Court

The trial court denied the motion for relief under section 473, reasoning that Mikulicich appeared at the court's proceedings, filed pleadings, and responded to discovery (albeit in an inadequate fashion). The court said, â€