When a case gets dismissed as a discovery sanction, the first instinct for many litigants—and many lawyers—is to reach for Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b). The “mandatory relief” provision is often treated like a safety net: file an attorney affidavit of fault, and the court must undo the damage.
But Rodriguez v. WNT, Inc. (Dec. 4, 2025, D084642) is a reminder that the safety net has limits. The Court of Appeal held that yes—mandatory relief does apply to terminating-sanctions dismissals. But that doesn’t mean the court will save a case from years of inaction, missed deadlines, and radio silence.
The Setup: A Case That Fell Apart Long Before the Dismissal
The underlying dispute was small—a bed bug claim against a San Diego hotel—but the procedural issues were anything but. Over several years:
- The plaintiff waited almost three years to serve the key defendants.
- Discovery deadlines came and went without responses—even after extensions.
- Defendants obtained unopposed orders compelling responses and awarding sanctions.
- Rodriguez didn’t oppose the terminating-sanctions motion.
- His lawyer told the court he couldn’t find his client.
- Even once the client resurfaced, discovery stayed noncompliant.
The trial court finally dismissed the case and later denied multiple rounds of Section 473(b) motions.
Mandatory Relief Applies… But It Still Requires Causation
The Court of Appeal made two important clarifications:
1. Terminating sanctions do fall within Section 473(b)’s mandatory-relief provision.
This broadens the statute’s reach and contradicts the only other published decision on the issue. For business litigants, that’s a meaningful development.
2. But the plaintiff must still show the dismissal was actually caused by the attorney’s mistake.
And that’s where Rodriguez’s argument fell apart.
The record showed years of noncompliance, repeated failures even after extensions, unopposed motions, no showing that the client’s disappearance was actually the lawyer’s “fault,” and no evidence that attorney error, rather than client inaction, caused the dismissal. The court emphasized that mandatory relief is not a reset button. If the problem is a long-term pattern of ignoring court orders—not a discrete attorney mistake—mandatory relief doesn’t apply.
No Help from Discretionary Relief, Either
The trial court had carefully reviewed the explanations offered and concluded there was no excusable neglect. The Court of Appeal saw no abuse of discretion.
Rodriguez also argued that the court should have tried “lesser sanctions” first. But the record showed it already had: monetary sanctions, orders compelling responses, RFA admissions, and even a 60-day stay of the dismissal to allow counsel time to locate his client. Nothing changed.
The Real Lesson for Businesses and Institutional Clients
Rodriguez isn’t about insects—it’s about litigation discipline and how courts view responsibility.
A few practical takeaways:
- Section 473(b) helps with acute attorney errors, not chronic noncompliance.
If the root problem is that the litigant was disengaged or ignored deadlines, the statute won’t revive the case. - Discovery discipline is leverage.
Defendants who build a clean record—missed deadlines, orders, sanctions—are in a strong position to seek and sustain terminating sanctions on appeal. - The record matters more than the excuse.
Not opposing the sanctions motion or failing to appear at hearings leaves the appellate court with almost nothing to work with. - Client engagement is not optional.
A “missing client” can sink a case, and Section 473(b) won’t necessarily bail it out.
At bottom, Rodriguez is a reminder that the rules governing discovery and sanctions are not technicalities—they’re part of the case’s backbone. When those obligations fall out of alignment for too long, even mandatory relief won’t put the structure back together.