Court Opinion

ID: 9745547
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 23:09:22.019081+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:02.436580
License: Public Domain

*1075EPSTEIN, P. J., Concurring.
I concur in the opinion except for part II of the Discussion, as to which I concur in the result. I continue to believe that Yeap v. Leake (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 591 [70 Cal.Rptr.2d 680] was wrongly decided with respect to its analysis of the breadth of the “mea culpa” provision of Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b). (See Yeap v. Leake, supra, 60 Cal.App.4th at p. 602, and cases that have agreed with the dissenting opinion in that case: English v. IKON Business Solutions, Inc. (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 130 [114 Cal.Rptr.2d 93]; Prieto v. Loyola Marymount University (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 290 [33 Cal.Rptr.3d 639].) Certainly, the failure to comply with discovery orders, resulting in the ultimate sanction of dismissal, cannot be fitted within the rationale of that statute. I would simply say so. But I do agree that even if Yeap v. Leake were correct in its analysis, it would not aid the appellant in this case.