Appellant buyer challenged a judgment

Appellant buyer challenged a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which denied its motion under the mandatory provision of Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b), to set aside a summary judgment entered against it in its breach of contract and fraud action against respondent seller.

The court held that the mandatory provision of Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b), did not encompass summary judgments. The mandatory provision empowered the trial court to vacate "any (1) resulting default entered by the clerk against his or her client, and which will result in entry of a default judgment, or (2) resulting default judgment or dismissal entered against his or her client." It did not authorize a court to set aside a summary judgment, and a summary judgment was neither a "default judgment" nor a "dismissal." For the knowledge of Los Angeles employment law hire an attorney.

The court concluded that there was no exception to the requirement that a moving party submit an attorney affidavit of fault under the mandatory provision of § 473, subd. (b). Furthermore, in the case of an attorney's abandonment of a client, the injured client's remedy was to bring a motion for discretionary relief under § 473. In the instant case, the record did not establish that the buyer was abandoned by its attorneys.

The court affirmed the judgment.

Appellant minor surviving children challenged the verdict returned in the Superior Court of Santa Clara County (California) that denied their recovery in a wrongful death action against respondent, administratrix of her pilot husband's estate. Appellants claimed that the deceased pilot's misconduct was wilful, and that at the time of their deaths their parents were passengers, not guests, in the aircraft, as a matter of law.

Appellant surviving children alleged wilful conduct in a wrongful death suit after their parents were killed in an airplane that crashed while piloted by their attorney, the husband of respondent administratrix. The court ruled that Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 21406 that prohibited a non-paying guest in any aircraft from any action for damages against a pilot, was not unconstitutional for want of due process and equal protection, and was not in conflict with 14 C.F.R. § 91.9 that forbade careless and reckless operation of aircraft. The court found that appellants' parents were passengers, not guests, at the time of the crash because of the expectation of future remuneration created by the attorney-client relationship, and that death proximately resulting from the pilot's intoxication removed the guest statute limitation. The court found that under the aviation guest statute, the pilot's violations of statutes and regulations constituted wilful misconduct as a matter of law. The court reversed the judgment and held that respondent had not rebutted the inference of negligence arising under res ipsa loquitur nor the presumption of negligence arising from flight regulation violations.

The court found that the trial court erred when it denied appellant surviving children's motion for a directed verdict on the issue of liability in their wrongful death action against respondent, administratrix of her pilot husband's estate. The court reversed the judgment and ordered the trial court to enter its minute order establishing defendant's liability as a matter of law, and to try the remaining issue of damages accordingly.