Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 23STCV23600, Date: 2024-01-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV23600    Hearing Date: January 26, 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

Plaintiff Gerardo Hernandez (“Plaintiff”) moves for a nunc pro tunc order correcting the date of filing the complaint.

Currently, the record shows the complaint was filed on September 28, 2023. Plaintiff contends he filed the complaint on September 27, 2023, but that it was rejected by the clerk on September 28, 2023. Plaintiff therefore asks the Court to deem the complaint filed on September 27, 2023, in order to avoid potential statute of limitation issues.

No other parties have appeared in this case.

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 insubstantial. 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).)

DISCUSSION

Here, the Notice of Court Rejection of Electronic Filing shows that the Court received Plaintiff’s complaint and summons on September 27, 2023 at 5:13 pm. (Minassian Decl. ¶ 5, Exh. 2.) The Notice of Rejection was generated on September 28, 2023 at 11:22 am. The following was the reason for the rejection: “On the complaint, it says "et al" in the caption. There are additional parties in the body of the complaint. All parties must be listed on the caption or an attachment” (Ibid.)

Plaintiff argues the Court Clerk improperly rejected the September 27, 2023 complaint because the “et al.” in the caption constituted an insubstantial error.  However, the Code of Civil Procedure provides: “[e]very pleading shall contain a caption setting forth: . . . The title of the action.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 422.30(a)(2).) Additionally, “[i]n 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.)

Plaintiff did not attach a copy of the September 27, 2023 complaint. However, based on Notice of Rejection, Plaintiff’s complaint did not conform to the statutory requirements because the caption did not include the names of all the parties. Plaintiff has not provided any authority that a rejection based on a failure to comply with a statutory requirement is insubstantial.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for Order Nunc Pro Tunc Filing of the Complaint is DENIED.

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