The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting plaintiff’s motion for discretionary relief under CCP 473(b) from a summary judgment for defendant.  Plaintiff’s attorney declared that when he prepared the opposition to the summary judgment motion he was suffering from a severe illness and was taking drugs for it that impaired him cognitively, though he didn’t realize it at the time, with the result that he did not produce readily available evidence in opposition to the summary judgment motion.  That was sufficient grounds for granting the motion.  The plaintiff did not have to show a default or dismissal as is required for mandatory relief from default based on attorney error.  The motion for relief was timely—7-10 weeks after the summary judgment was granted, and the defendant was not significantly prejudiced, though it would incur added cost in again moving for summary judgment and the plaintiff would get a second chance to raise a triable issue of fact.

California Court of Appeal, First District, Division 4 (Streeter, J.); September 2, 2016; 2016 WL 4578644