Skip to main content

Cases Dealing with Family Law and Applicability of section 473 to In-House Counsels

By FindLaw Staff on May 10, 2010 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

In Gutierrez v. G&M Oil Co., Inc., No. G042041, the Fourth District faced a challenge to the trial court's decision setting aside a $4 million default judgment against a gas station chain caused by the negligence of its in-house attorney, arising from a class action employment lawsuit. The court first resolved the issue of whether in-house attorneys come within the mandatory relief from default or dismissal provision of Code of Civil Procedure section 473, in answering in the affirmative.  Next, the court held that under the facts of the case, it does not make any difference that the in-house attorney was also a corporate officer of the company.  Lastly, the court held that the mandatory relief provision of section 473 is constitutional.   

In re E.B., No. B215774, concerned a challenge to the juvenile court's jurisdiction findings and disposition orders that resulted in an eleven-year-old boy and an eight-year-old girl being detained with their mother, as well as the court order monitoring the visits between the father and the son and no contact between father and daughter.  Because the the mother and father fail to show any error, insufficiency of the evidence, or abuse of discretion, juvenile court's decision is affirmed.     

Copied to clipboard