Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 22STCV18225, Date: 2024-01-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV18225    Hearing Date: January 18, 2024    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Lorena Delgado Marchan, Jennifer Delgado, Gabby Bahena, Emiliano Delgado Jr, a minor, and Ashley Delgado, a minor (“Plaintiffs”) move for a nunc pro tunc order correcting the date of filing the complaint.

Currently, the record shows the complaint was filed on June 2, 2022. Plaintiffs contend they filed the complaint on May 31, 2022, but that it was rejected. Plaintiffs therefore ask the Court to deem the filing of the complaint on May 31, 2022, in order to avoid potential statute of limitation issues.

Plaintiffs make this motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 473(d) and California Rules of Court, rules 5.560(a) and 5.560(f).

Defendant Cu Cong Ca (“Defendant”) was personally served the summons and complaint on November 1, 2023. On November 15, 2023, Defendant filed an answer.

LEGAL STANDARD

A court clerk has no discretion to reject a pleading that substantially conforms to the rules. (Rojas v. Cutsforth (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 774, 777-78 [the filing functions of a clerk are merely ministerial].) If the clerk refuses to file the complaint due to an insignificant defect, it is deemed filed, for statute of limitations purposes, on the date it was first presented for filing. (Id. at 778.) Where a defect is insubstantial, the clerk should, instead, file the complaint and notify the attorney or party that the perceived defect should be corrected at the earliest opportunity. (Id. at 777; see also Carlson v. State of California Department of Fish & Game (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1268, 1270, 1276 [the grounds for rejecting a filing of a complaint must be based in statute or the California Rules of Court, and not on local rules].) A paper is deemed filed when it is deposited with the clerk with directions to file the paper. (Dillon v. Superior Court of Nevada County (1914) 24 Cal.App. 760, 765.)

In Rojas, a clerk rejected a complaint filed within the statute of limitations period because the plaintiff failed to sign the declaration of court assignment and the summons did not reflect the address of the proper division of the court. (Rojas, supra, 67 Cal.App.4^th at 776.) The plaintiff then corrected the mistake and re-filed the complaint after the statute of limitations expired. (Id.) The court held the defects were unsubstantial. Additionally, there was no authority supporting the clerk’s rejection. (Id. at 777-78.) The court reversed the summary judgment entered on statute of limitations grounds with instructions to deem the complaint filed on the initial date of filing. (Id. at 778.)

Under California Rules of Court, rules 5.560, “[s]ubject to the procedural requirements prescribed by this chapter, an order made by the court may at any time be changed, modified, or set aside.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.560(a).) Additionally, “[c]lerical errors in judgments, orders, or other parts of the record may be corrected by the court at any time on the court's own motion or on motion of any party and may be entered nunc pro tunc.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.560(f).)

“In the complaint, the title of the action shall include the names of all the parties; but, except as otherwise provided by statute or rule of the Judicial Council, in other pleadings it is sufficient to state the name of the first party on each side with an appropriate indication of other parties.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 422.40.)

“The Judicial Council has preempted all local rules relating to pleadings, demurrers, ex parte applications, motions, discovery, provisional remedies, and the form and format of papers. No trial court, or any division or branch of a trial court, may enact or enforce any local rule concerning these fields. All local rules concerning these fields are null and void unless otherwise permitted or required by a statute or a rule in the California Rules of Court.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.20(a).)  

DISCUSSION

Here, the Notice of Court Rejection of Electronic Filing shows that the Court received Plaintiff’s complaint and summons on May 31, 2022. (Naimi Decl. ¶ 9, Attach. 2.) The Notice of Rejection was generated on June 1, 2022. The following was the reason for the rejection: “Did not indicate or label minors and their guardian ad litem in caption of complaint. If there is not enough space, use an attachment. Also include an application for guardian ad litem for each minor. Correct and resubmit.” (Ibid.)

However, according to the Proof of Service filed November 3, 2023, Defendant has not received notice of the instant motion. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 1014 [“A defendant appears in an action when the defendant answers . . . . After appearance, a defendant or the defendant's attorney is entitled to notice of all subsequent proceedings of which notice is required to be given.”].) Therefore, the Court denies the motion as procedurally improper.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the motion for a Nunc Pro Tunc Order Correcting the Date of Filing on Complaint is DENIED.

Plaintiffs shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.