Blown Demurrer Opp. Counts as a "Dismissal" for Mandatory § 473(b) Relief

Pagnini v. Union Bank, N.A., No. A151390 (D1d5 Oct. 17, 2018)

Plaintiff’s attorney tried to file an amended complaint as a response to a demurrer. But the attorney didn’t know that Code of Civil Procedure § 472—the statute that permits an amendment as a response to a demurrer—had recently been amended to change the timing. Although the prior version let you moot a demurrer by filing an amendment before the demurrer hearing, the current version required the amended complaint to be filed before the opposition is due. This resulted in the clerk rejecting the amended pleading. The trial court ultimately granted the demurrer as unopposed and entered judgment for Defendant.

Several months later, Plaintiff filed a motion for mandatory relief under § 473(b). His motion was accompanied by a declaration from his attorney, attesting to the mistake that led to the dismissal. But the trial court denied the motion nonetheless. 

That was error. The mandatory relief provision in § 473(b) applies to both defaults and dismissals that are caused by the neglect (even the inexcusable neglect) of a party’s attorneys. At some point, the Legislature added dismissals to provide parity between mistakes by both plaintiffs and defense lawyers. Dismissals include failures to respond to “dismissal motions.” And while there does not appear to be a prior case that says it, the court finds that a failure to respond to a demurrer to the whole complaint readily fits into that category, given that if granted without leave to amend, a demurrer lead to a dismissal under § 581(f)(1). Which is what happened here after the attorney whiffed on the deadline.

Reversed.