Cases

Plaintiff was represented by two law firms, neither of which prepared or filed opposition to the defendant’s motion for summary judgment based on the standard of care. One firm unilaterally withdrew from representing plaintiff a few days before the hearing and the other firm asked for a 120-day continuance to review the file and prepare opposition on the merits. No explanation was given by either firm for the complete failure of either of them to prepare opposition to that point.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, noting “this case involves the abject and insufficiently explained failure to oppose a motion for summary judgment, compounded by an untimely, unexplained request for a continuance of the hearing on the motion.”

Case Briefs

• California Court of Appeal Opinion - View Document