Court Opinion

ID: 9885182
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 03:41:04.734184+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:45.651207
License: Public Domain

WALLIN, J., Concurring and Dissenting.
I concur in parts I, II and the result of the lead opinion. Part III is totally unnecessary, and involves a *1567contention not made before, or considered by, the trial court. In addition, it totally misreads the 1992 amendment to Code of Civil Procedure section 473. That amendment was obviously intended to place plaintiffs who are facing a discretionary dismissal on equal footing with defendants threatened with a default judgment. In both cases a party whose attorney is solely responsible for the neglect leading to dismissal or default is entitled to relief if the attorney declares the delay in prosecuting, or responding to, the lawsuit was due to his or her neglect.
In any event the issue is not before us. My learned colleague is simply eager to be the first in print with a discussion of the amendment. The issue might be interesting in a law review or at a meeting of trial lawyers. It does not belong in this case. Bernard Witkin has labeled this form of judicial eagerness “Have opinion, need case.” (Witkin, Manual on Appellate Court Opinions (1977) § 85, p. 155. See Gantt v. Sentry Insurance (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1083, 1102 [4 Cal.Rptr.2d 874, 824 P.2d 680] (conc. and dis. opn. of Kennard, J.).)