Judge: Andrew E. Cooper, Case: 23CHCV01061, Date: 2023-08-31 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: 23CHCV01061    Hearing Date: August 31, 2023    Dept: F51

MOTION FOR AN ORDER NUNC PRO TUNC

Motion Filed: 6/2/23

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Andreh Ghazarian and Adrineh Aslanian (collectively, “Plaintiffs”)

RESPONDING PARTY: none

NOTICE: OK

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order nunc pro tunc overturning the rejection of Plaintiffs’ Summons and Complaint and accepting the filing thereof as of the original 4/7/23 filing date.

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is granted.

BACKGROUND

This is a personal injury action brought by Plaintiffs against defendants Hannah Melissa Goldner, Eric Golder, and Debra Goldner, for collision between two vehicles driven by plaintiff Andreh Ghazarian and defendant Hannah Melissa Goldner on 4/10/21.

On 4/7/21, at 5:28 PM, Plaintiffs attempted to file their Complaint, alleging against Defendants the following causes of action: (1) Negligence; (2) Negligence Per Se; (3) Negligent Entrustment; and (4) Loss of Consortium. (Ex. 1 to Mot.)

On 4/11/23, at 3:19 PM, the Court generated a Notice of Court Rejection of Electronic Filing, citing the reason for the rejection as follows: “In eFile- ‘Type of Action’ selected ‘2304-0ther Personal Injury’ which does not correspond with your selection on Civil Case Cover Sheet Addendum & Statement of Location ‘2201-Motor Vehicle.’” (Ibid.)

On the same date, at 3:58 PM, Plaintiffs successfully re-filed their Complaint with the Court. On 6/2/23, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion for an order nunc pro tunc deeming the Summons and Complaint as filed on 4/7/23. No opposition has been filed to date, as Defendants have not been served with process.

//

//

ANALYSIS

Plaintiffs argue 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, Plaintiffs’ 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 Plaintiffs’ Summons and Complaint to be deemed filed as of 4/7/23.

CONCLUSION