Opprime Investments v. DiMeo
Roman A. DiMeo asks this court to reverse an order denying his motion to set aside a default and default judgment under Code of Civil Procedure[1]section 473, subdivision (b) (section 473(b)). DiMeo asserts he is entitled to relief from default based upon his excusable neglect and the mitigating circumstances surrounding his failure to answer the complaint. DiMeo also asserts the court erred in disregarding his statute of limitations defense. Court conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in denying DiMeo's motion for relief under both the mandatory and discretionary provisions of section 473(b). Court also conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in not addressing DiMeo's statute of limitations defense. For these reasons, Court affirm the court's order denying DiMeo's motion.
Comments on Opprime Investments v. DiMeo