Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 23STCV20122, Date: 2024-03-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV20122    Hearing Date: March 6, 2024    Dept: 55

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:  DEFENDANT LOS ANGELES DODGERS LLC’S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF THOMAS VALENTINE’S COMPLAINT

In this case, THOMAS VALENTINE (“Plaintiff”) seeks damages against LOS ANGELES DODGERS LLC and GUGGENHEIM BASEBALL MANAGEMENT LLC related to the Dodgers’ allegedly violating the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Civil Code Section 51 (“Unruh Act”) when they asked Plaintiff to leave the stadium after he refused to wear a mask while attending a game on August 20, 2021.  

Defendant LOS ANGELES DODGERS LLC (“Defendant”) brings a demurrer to the single cause of action for violation of the Unruh Act. Plaintiff opposes the demurrer.

Defendant correctly argues that the Unruh Act claim is time-barred under the two-year statute of limitations (Code Civ. Proc., § 335.1) because the face of the Complaint shows that Plaintiff’s claim accrued on August 20, 2021, but he did not file the Complaint until more than two years late, on August 22, 2023. The Court therefore will sustain the demurrer.

Defendant argues that the demurrer should be sustained without leave to amend. Plaintiff argues that the Clerk rejected the Complaint that was timely filed, simply because the address was not stated at the top of the Complaint, and Plaintiff promptly corrected it.  

Courts generally allow at least one opportunity to amend a complaint, after sustaining a demurrer. City of Stockton v. Sup.Ct. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 730, 747; Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Pro. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2023) ¶7:129.

“The clerk has no discretion to reject a complaint that substantially conforms to the local rules.”  Rojas v. Cutsforth (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 774, 777.  A document is deemed filed when it is deposited with the clerk with directions to file the paper where the clerk had no proper basis for rejecting it.  Ibid. at 778. Generally, documents are deemed filed when the court clerk receives them for filing, during open hours, at the clerk’s place of business (with exceptions, including failures to pay required fees, or to file documents in the proper form required by the rules, or when clerks have no authority for rejecting documents).  E.g., Duran v. St. Luke's Hospital (2003) 114 Cal. App. 4th 457, 461-62;  Carlson v. Dep't of Fish & Game (1998) 68 Cal. App. 4th 1268, 1276.  “If a document is presented to the clerk’s office for filing in a form that complies with the rules of court, the clerk's office has a ministerial duty to file it....  Even if the document contains defects, the clerk's office should file it and notify the party that the defect should be corrected.…”  Voit v. Sup. Ct.  (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1285, 1287.  See also CRC Rule 2.118(c) (“For good cause shown, the court may permit the filing of papers that do not comply with the rules in this chapter.”); and L.A.S.C. First Amended Gen. Ord. ¶ 7(a)(ii) (regarding possible relief for electronic filing errors).

Given law such as that referenced above, the Court concludes there is a somewhat reasonable possibility of successfully amending the Complaint. Therefore, the demurrer is sustained with leave to amend. Plaintiff may serve and file a First Amended Complaint by 3/27/2024.