Motion for Relief
TENTATIVE RULINGS 5-22-26 Department R17- Judge Gilbert G. Ochoa
This court follows California Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a) (1) for tentative rulings. (See San Bernardino Superior Court Local Emergency Rule 8.) Tentative rulings for each law & motion will be posted on the internet (https://www.sb-court.org) by 3:00 p.m. on the court day immediately before the hearing.
If you do not have internet access or if you experience difficulty with the posted tentative ruling, you may obtain the tentative ruling by calling the Administrative Assistant. You may appear in person at the hearing but personal appearance is not required and remote appearance by CourtCall is preferred during the Pandemic. (See www.sbcourt.org/general-information/remote-access)
If you wish to submit on the ruling, call the Court, check-in and state that you will be submitting on the Tentative, and your appearance is not necessary. But you must check in. If both sides do not appear, the tentative will simply become the ruling. If any party submits on the tentative, the Court will not alter the tentative and it will become the ruling. If one party wants to argue, Court will hear argument but will not change the tentative. If the Court does decide to modify tentative after argument, then a further hearing for oral argument will be reset for both parties to be heard at the same time by the Court. This procedure is meant to minimize your waiting time in Court.
AMALIA VENTURA DE RODRIGUEZ
v.
NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.
Motion(s): Motion for Relief
Movant(s): Defendant Nissan North America, Inc.
Respondent(s): Plaintiff Amalia Ventura De Rodriguez
DISCUSSION
Legal Standard
The court may relieve a party from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken
against the party through mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. A motion for
Page | 1
discretionary relief must be brought within a reasonable time, not to exceed six months from entry.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
(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.
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