180 Days After Entry of Judgment Relief
A court has power within six months after entry of judgment to grant relief from the judgment on the grounds of "mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect." ( 473, subd. (b).)
Section 473 grants a court discretion "upon any terms as may be just," to "relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect." ( 473, subd. (b).)
In addition, under a separate, mandatory provision, "the court shall, whenever an application for relief is made no more than six months after entry of judgment, is in proper form, and is accompanied by an attorney's sworn affidavit attesting to his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect, 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 not in fact caused by the attorney's mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect." ( 473, subd. (b).)
The grounds and terms upon which such relief may be granted are the same as those involving pretrial orders.
A trial court's order granting or denying relief under section 473, subdivision (b) is reviewed on appeal for abuse of discretion. ( Uriarte v. United States Pipe & Foundry Co. (1996) 51 Cal. App. 4th 780, 787-790 [59 Cal. Rptr. 2d 332].)
"Although precise definition is difficult, it is generally accepted that the appropriate test of abuse of discretion is whether or not the trial court exceeded the bounds of reason, all of the circumstances before it being considered.
We have said that when two or more inferences can reasonably be deduced from the facts, a reviewing court lacks power to substitute its deductions for those of the trial court." ( In re Marriage of Connolly (1979) 23 Cal. 3d 590, 597-598 [153 Cal. Rptr. 423, 591 P.2d 911]; see also Yeap v. Leake (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 591, 598 [70 Cal. Rptr. 2d 680] (Yeap).)