Amalia Ventura De Rodriguez v. Nissan North America, Inc.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).) The motion is timely.

Analysis

Defendant moves for relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b),

from the Court’s December 5, 2025 order granting Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses

to RFPs. Defendant seeks discretionary relief based on alleged mistake, inadvertence, or excusable

neglect arising from counsel’s failure to oppose the motion and appear at the hearing. Mandatory

relief is not at issue, as the challenged order is not a default, default judgment, or dismissal.

(Vandermoon v. Sanwong (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 315, 320.)

Plaintiff served her motion to compel further responses on July 1, 2025, setting the hearing

for September 24, 2025, with Defendant’s opposition due on September 11, 2025. (Gonzalez Decl.

¶¶ 8-11.) Defendant did not file an opposition. (Gilefsky Decl. ¶ 4.) The Court’s Register of

Actions reflects that on September 18, 2025, the Court rescheduled the hearing to December 5,

2025. On December 5, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses,

and a Notice of Ruling was served on December 12, 2025. (Gilefsky Decl. ¶ 6.)

Defendant’s counsel attributes the faile to oppose to an internal reassignment issue arising

from an associate’s maternity leave. (Id. at ¶ 3.) However, counsel also acknowledges that a

partner remained assigned to the matter at all relevant times. (Id. at ¶ 2.) After learning of the

ruling, Defendant sent a meet and confer email requesting that Plaintiff stipulate to set aside the

order. (Id. at ¶ 7.)

The Court denies the motion. Defendant has not established excusable neglect within the

meaning of section 473, subdivision (b). The explanation offered, a failure to reassign the case

during an attorney’s maternity leave, does not constitute an isolated calendaring or clerical error,

Page | 2

but instead reflects a breakdown in case management. Discretionary relief is not available where

it is not demonstrated the error was that of “‘a reasonably prudent person under the same

circumstances.’” (Jackson v. Bank of America (1983) 141 Cal.App.3d 55, 58.) Critically,

Defendant’s own showing confirms that a partner remained assigned to the matter and could have

monitored the case and filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s discovery motion. (Gilefsky Decl. ¶ 2.)

The failure here was not limited to a single missed deadline or inadvertent mistake; Defendant

failed to oppose the motion, failed to monitor the case after the opposition deadline passed, failed

to take advantage of the continued hearing date to file an opposition, and ultimately failed to appear

at the December 5, 2025 hearing.

Defendant’s explanation amounts to a claim of being overwhelmed by internal workload

and reassignment demands. Such circumstances do not constitute excusable neglect. As the Court

explained in Huh v. Wang (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 1046, an attorney’s “press of business” or heavy

workload, standing alone, does not justify relief under section 473, subdivision (b). (Huh v. Wang,

supra, at pp. 1423-1424.) Rather, relief is warranted only where the workload is accompanied by

some external factor beyond counsel’s control, such as clerical error or extraordinary

circumstances. (Id. at pp. 1424-1425.) Here, no such external factor exists. There is no evidence

of clerical mishandling, system failure, or other circumstance outside counsel’s control; instead,

the record reflects a failure to properly assign and monitor an active case.

The procedural posture further weighs against granting relief. Plaintiff propounded

discovery in early 2025, engaged in months of meet and confer efforts, and filed a motion to

compel in July 2025. (Gonzalez Decl. ¶¶ 3-7.) Despite obtaining an order in December 2025,

Plaintiff remains without the requested documents, and trial is set for June 2026. Granting relief

Page | 3

at this stage would reward Defendant’s lack of diligence, further delay discovery, and prejudice

Plaintiff’s ability to prepare for trial.

Accordingly, Defendant has not met its burden to demonstrate mistake, inadvertence, or

excusable neglect under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b). Therefore, the court

denies Defendant’s motion for relief.

Movant to give notice.

Dated-

____________________________ Judge

Page | 4