Arellano v. The Regents of the University of California (2010) 2010 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 986 (California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three) [unpublished]. 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.”
We welcome your inquiry. However, sending us an email does not create an attorney-client relationship. For that reason, you should not send us any kind of confidential information. Until we have agreed to represent you, we cannot be obligated to keep it confidential.