California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division
Kamyar R. SHAYAN, Plaintiff and Respondent,
SPINE CARE AND ORTHOPEDIC PHYSICIANS et al., Defendants and Appellants.
Cal.Rptr.3d 438] APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court
of Los Angeles County, Richard Fruin, Jr., Judge. Affirmed.
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC656852)
Yuhas, Ehrlich & Ardell, Evan D. Marshall, Ian Herzog, Santa
Monica, for Defendants and Appellants.
Offices of Kamyar R. Shayan and Kamyar R. Shayan, Los
Angeles, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Plaintiff and Respondent Kamyar Shayan filed an interpleader
action to resolve claims about a disputed $19,365 sum. Two
claimants and defendants had notice of the trial date but
failed to appear. The court conducted the trial, adjudicated
the case on the merits, and entered judgment. Later these
claimants filed a motion for relief under the mandatory
provision of subdivision (b) of section 473 of the Code of
Civil Procedure. (All statutory citations are to this code.)
This mandatory provision applies only to defaults, default
judgments, and dismissals. The trial court denied this motion
because the trial on the merits had not been a default, a
default judgment, or a dismissal. Rather, it had been a trial
on the merits. We affirm the trial courts straightforward
interpretation of statutory language.
essential facts are these. Shayan is a lawyer who recovered
about $30,000 for his client Angelica Mazariegos in a
personal injury action. Various entities had liens on this
recovery. Among them were Appellants Spine Care & Orthopedic
Physicians (Spine Care) and C&C Factoring Solutions (C&C).
Shayan subtracted about $10,000 for his fee, deposited the
remaining $19,365, and initiated this interpleader action,
naming Mazariegos, Spine Care, and C&C as interpleader
defendants. These three defendants filed answers. The court
set the trial date. All parties had actual notice of this
trial date, which was June 4, 2018. Spine Care and C&C did
not appear at the trial. The trial court proceeded with
trial, heard evidence, and rendered judgment. The court
signed the judgment on June 16, 2018 and Shayan gave notice.
Then on July 25, 2018, Spine Care and C&C, represented by new
counsel, filed a motion to vacate default and default
judgment. The court heard this motion and took additional
briefing. It denied the motion after a second hearing. Its
main reason was that the motion sought relief under the
mandatory portion of subdivision (b) of section 473, but that
section applied only to defaults, default judgments, and
dismissals, none of which had occurred in this case. Spine
Care and C&C appeal this ruling.
Cal.Rptr.3d 439] Our review is independent. (The Urban
Wildlands Group, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (2017) 10
Cal.App.5th 993, 998, 217 Cal.Rptr.3d 16 (Urban ).)
lawyers make mistakes, they try to turn to subdivision (b) of
section 473 for relief. This subdivision offers two kinds of
relief. One is discretionary. The other is mandatory. The
mandatory provision is the one at issue here.
text of subdivision (b) of section 473 is the focus of this
dispute, so we excerpt the pertinent text and italicize its
"[T]he court shall ... 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, unless
the court finds that the default or
dismissal was ...