## Facts

- Pablo Zamora (d/b/a Creative Engineering and Fabrication) sued Clayborn Contracting Group, Inc. for breach of contract and related claims, alleging nonpayment for road signs and seeking about $143,000 plus attorney’s fees.
- Clayborn answered, filed a cross-complaint, and had previously sent Zamora an invoice for about $157,000.
- Shortly before trial, Zamora served a statutory offer to compromise under California Code of Civil Procedure § 998 intended to allow judgment in Zamora’s favor for $149,999.
- A typographical error reversed the offer’s direction, stating judgment would be taken against Zamora and for Clayborn for $149,999.
- Clayborn accepted the offer and filed a notice of acceptance within days.
- After discovering the error, Zamora moved under the discretionary relief provision of Code of Civil Procedure § 473(b) to set aside the § 998 offer or vacate the resulting judgment, asserting mistake, inadvertence, and excusable neglect.
- The trial court found the error clerical/ministerial, concluded the offer did not reflect Zamora’s intent, and granted relief; the Court of Appeal affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether Code of Civil Procedure § 473(b) discretionary relief is available from a judgment entered based on an accepted but mistaken § 998 offer of compromise.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in finding the drafting error “excusable” under § 473(b).

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court held that § 473(b) discretionary relief may apply to a judgment entered following an accepted § 998 offer that was mistaken due to clerical error.
- The Court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the mistake excusable because a reasonably prudent person could have made the same typographical error.
- The Court affirmed the Court of Appeal’s judgment upholding the trial court’s order vacating the judgment and setting aside the mistaken § 998 offer.

## Legal Principles

- Under Code of Civil Procedure § 473(b), a court may relieve a party from a judgment or other proceeding taken against the party through mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, on just terms.
- “Excusable” attorney error is assessed by whether a reasonably prudent person under similar circumstances might have made the same mistake.
- Discretionary relief for attorney error is limited to mistakes fairly imputable to the client (including clerical or ministerial errors) and does not extend to conduct falling below professional standards of care.
- Relief decisions under § 473(b) are reviewed for abuse of discretion, with substantial deference to the trial court’s evaluation of the circumstances and credibility of the asserted mistake.

## Conclusion

The court permitted discretionary relief under § 473(b) from a judgment entered on an accepted § 998 offer when a support-staff typographical error reversed the offer’s intended terms, and it upheld the trial court’s finding that the error was excusable and warranted vacating the judgment.


Zamora v. Clayborn Contracting Group, Inc., 28 Cal. 4th 249 (Cal. 2002)