Wednesday, October 29, 2025
Page 3
Court of Appeal:
Blameless Attorney Admitted Fault for Terminating Sanction
Justices Say Lawyer Attempted to Resurrect Action Though CCP §473(b) Motion Where Client, Not He, Was Culpable
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Court of Appeal for this district has concluded that a Bel Air attorney falsely proclaimed himself to have been to blame for terminating sanctions being imposed on his client, executing an affidavit of fault in an effort to gain reinstatement of cross claims in a commercial landlord-tenant dispute.
Justice Gregory J. Weingart of Div. One authored the unpublished opinion, filed Monday. It affirms Los Angeles Superior Court Judge William Fahey’s denial of cross-complainant Lewis Seiden’s motion for an order vacating a judgment of dismissal.
The motion was pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §473(b) which provides:
“[T]he court shall, whenever an application for relief is made no more than six months after entry of judgment, is in proper form, and is accompanied by an attorney’s sworn affidavit attesting to his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect, vacate any…resulting dismissal entered against his or her client.”
It declares such relief to be unavailable where the “dismissal was not in fact caused by the attorney’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect.”
Fahey determined that terminating sanctions, based on Seiden’s pervasive misconduct in connection with discovery, was not caused by Bel Air attorney Travis A. Corder who was retained on May 24, 2023. Opposition to the motion for terminating sanctions was due on June 1 of that year.
Weingart’s Opinion
Weingart wrote:
“The fault for the discovery misconduct that led to terminating sanctions occurred when Seiden was representing himself and belonged to him alone; it was not the fault of the attorney he retained at the eleventh hour as the court considered the consequences of that misconduct.”
He noted that it is questionable “whether failure to oppose the motions at issue here even qualifies for relief under section 473(b),” explaining that the statute applies “only to a default entered when a defendant fails to answer a complaint and to dismissals which are procedurally equivalent to such a default,” remarking:
“The dismissal here was not entered solely as a result of the failure to file an opposition to the sanctions motions in the way a default is entered if no answer is filed. It was entered because Seiden (and not his attorney) had previously engaged in a repeated pattern of discovery abuse.”
Condor’s Declaration
The jurist went on to say that in any event, Fahey reasonably found that Condor was not at fault. He pointed to Condor’s declaration in which it was recited that when he was retained, he said “it was extremely unlikely he would be able to prepare and file the 8 necessary oppositions by the June 1 filing deadline, or even shortly thereafter” and that he “intended, rather, to first attempt to obtain additional time by stipulation of the parties, and failing that, to apply ex parte for a continuance of the Motions hearing date....”
Weingart reasoned:
“Based on this, the court could reasonably infer that Seiden retained Corder with the understanding that Corder was not going to prepare oppositions to the motions by June 1 because there was not enough time for Corder to do so.”
Proposed Pleading
Sec. 473(b) specifies:
“Application for this relief shall be accompanied by a copy of the answer or other pleading proposed to be filed therein.”
Weingart said that it in the present context, that meant providing verified responses to discovery requests which, he pointed out, Seiden did not do, constituting a separate basis for affirming the order denying relief from the judgment of dismissal.
The opinion also affirms the dismissal, with Weingart opining that it was appropriate “given the breadth of Seiden’s misconduct.”
The case is Seiden v. CMS Construction, B334424.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company