In Avila v. Chua (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 860 the plaintiff's attorney erred in calendaring the due date for a response to the defendants' summary judgment motion; the trial court struck the plaintiff's late-filed opposition, granted the motion on the basis of the moving papers and then denied the plaintiff's motion for relief. In reversing the order denying relief under the mandatory provision of section 473, the Court of Appeal stated that the plaintiff had lost his day in court due solely to his lawyer's failure to act and thus the situation was "directly analogous to a default judgment: Due to counsel's late filing of crucial documents, the court decided the matter on the other parties' pleadings. There was no litigation on the merits. Appellant submitted declarations which directly contradicted respondents' most crucial proposed undisputed facts, but those declarations were not considered by the court. Appellant's response was stricken, and the matter proceeded to summary judgment and judgment as if by default." (Avila, at p. 868.) In sum, due to a calendaring error by plaintiff's counsel, plaintiff filed opposition to defendants' summary judgment motions one week late. (Id. at pp. 864-865.) The late-filed oppositions included expert declarations opining that defendants' medical treatment of decedent was below the standard of care and proximately caused and contributed to her death. (Id. at p. 864.) The trial court denied a request for a continuance of the hearing, struck the oppositions as untimely, granted summary judgment, and denied plaintiff's motion to vacate. (Id. at pp. 864-865.) The Court of Appeal reversed, finding that "appellant lost his day in court due solely to his lawyer's failure to timely act." (Id. at p. 868.) The Court held that the trial court erred in denying the motion for relief under the mandatory relief provision of section 473, reasoning that the striking of the late-filed opposition papers to the MSJ was "directly analogous to a default." (Id. at p. 868.)