Lynch v. Lockett CA3
Did the trial court abuse its discretion by allowing Julius Rayart Lockett, Jr., to file a responsive pleading five days after the hearing on his motion to set aside a five-year domestic violence restraining order pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473? Marnie Lynch contends the court erred as a matter of law by setting aside the order because Lockett failed to accompany the application for relief with a copy of his answer as mandated by section 473. We conclude that Lockett’s filing of an answer within the five days allowed by the court constitutes substantial compliance with the statute and the court did not abuse its discretion by extending a short grace period to defendant under the circumstances presented here. The order is affirmed.
Comments on Lynch v. Lockett CA3