Judge: Andrew E. Cooper, Case: 23CHCV00608, Date: 2023-10-05 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F51, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2251.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 23CHCV00608    Hearing Date: October 5, 2023    Dept: F51

Dept. F-51¿ 

Date: 10/5/23 

Case #23CHCV00608

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F-51

MOTION FOR AN ORDER NUNC PRO TUNC

Motion Filed: 7/10/23

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Vartan Minassian (“Plaintiff”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants Levon Ayrapetov; Jessica Ayrapetov; William Josephson; and Catherine Flannery (collectively, “Defendants”)

NOTICE: OK

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order nunc pro tunc overturning the rejection of Plaintiff’s Summons and Complaint and accepting the filing thereof as of the original 2/22/23 filing date.

TENTATIVE RULING: The unopposed motion is granted.

Plaintiff is reminded to review the 5/3/19 First Amended General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil. When e-filing documents, parties must comply with the “TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS” which are set forth at page 4, line 4 through page 5, line 12 of the Court’s 5/3/19 First Amended General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil (particularly bookmarking declarations and exhibits). (CRC 3.1110(f)(4).) Failure to comply with these requirements in the future may result in papers being rejected, matters being placed off calendar, matters being continued so documents can be resubmitted in compliance with these requirements, documents not being considered and/or the imposition of sanctions.

BACKGROUND

This is a personal injury action in which Plaintiff alleges that on 2/23/21, Plaintiff was walking his dog near Defendants’ residence when he was attacked by two of Defendants’ dogs. (Compl. ¶¶ 11–12.)

On 2/22/23, at 5:14 PM, Plaintiff attempted to file his Complaint, alleging against Defendants the following causes of action: (1) Strict Liability; and (2) Negligence. (Decl. of George K. Jawlakian ¶ 3, Ex. 1 to Mot.)

On 2/24/23, at 3:19 PM, the Court generated a Notice of Court Rejection of Electronic Filing, citing the reason for the rejection as follows: “The Defendants name on Summons must match exactly as stated in EFM and Complaint. Incomplete Summons, missing plaintiff's attorney telephone number and zlso [sic] in EFM.’” (Ex. 2 to Mot.) On 3/1/23, at 9:50 AM, the Court again rejected the filing for the following reasons: “Incorrect case category and/or case type selected … In eFile - "Type of Action" must correspond verbatim with your selection on the Civil Case Cover Sheet Addendum & Statement of Location...please verify and correct.” (Ibid.)

On 3/2/23, at 2:14 PM, Plaintiff successfully re-filed his Complaint with the Court. On 7/10/23, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion for an order nunc pro tunc deeming the Summons and Complaint as filed on 2/22/23. No opposition has been filed to date.

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff argues that the Court clerk improperly rejected the filing after the two-year statute of limitations expired. In Rojas v. Cutsforth (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 774, the plaintiff in a personal injury action had mailed the complaint to the superior court clerk for filing within the statutory period; however, the clerk returned the unfiled complaint by mail because the declaration for court assignment was not signed, and the summons contained the address of the wrong branch of the court. In the meantime, the statute of limitations passed. The trial court denied plaintiff's request for a nunc pro tunc filing of the complaint and granted summary judgment for the defendant on the ground that the plaintiff’s action was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment with instructions to deem the complaint filed when it was first presented. The court held that the clerk had no proper basis for rejecting plaintiff's complaint; thus, it was deemed filed on the date that it was first deposited with the clerk. (See also Dillon v. Superior Court of Nevada County (1914) 24 Cal.App. 760, 765–766 [a paper is deemed filed when deposited with the clerk with directions to file the paper]; Carlson v. State of California Department of Fish & Game (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1268.)

Here, Plaintiff’s complaint was submitted for filing before the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations and was seemingly rejected for technical reasons due to a clerical error, not a legal deficiency in the complaint. Therefore, the Court grants the instant motion, and orders Plaintiff’s Summons and Complaint to be deemed filed as of 2/22/23.

CONCLUSION

The unopposed motion is granted.