Reid v. Knickerbocker
After plaintiff and respondent Merrilee Reid (Merrilee)[1]sued Elaine Featherstone[2]and defendants and appellants Richard Knickerbocker and the Knickerbocker Law Corporation (collectively, Knickerbocker) for malicious prosecution, Featherstone filed a motion to dismiss the action under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (the anti-SLAPP statute).[3] Knickerbocker joined the anti-SLAPP motion. The trial court initially granted the motion; however, it subsequently denied the motion after finding Merrilee was entitled to relief under section 473, subdivision (b), based on the mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect of her attorney. In Knickerbockers timely appeal, it is contended the trial court erred in granting the section 473 motion because (1) Merrilee was jurisdictionally limited to seeking relief via a motion for reconsideration under section 1008, and Merrilee failed to establish an entitlement to relief under that section, and (2) even if the trial court had authority to grant relief under section 473, it exceeded its discretion in doing so. Alternatively, Knickerbocker contends the denial of the anti-SLAPP motion was erroneous. Court agree with the second contention and, therefore, have no occasion to reach the others: Although the evidence supported the trial courts finding that counsels error was caused by the emotional strain he was suffering during the time, the discretionary relief provision of section 473, subdivision (b) does not afford relief for the kind of mistakes in legal advocacy that was made in this case. Accordingly, Court reverse.
Comments on Reid v. Knickerbocker