Plaintiff Mustache Productions, Inc.’s Motion for Nunc Pro Tunc Order Correcting Complaint Filing Date

Plaintiff Mustache Productions, Inc. moves for a nunc pro tunc order correcting the filing date of the complaint to May 6, 2024, instead of May 7.  Courts may issue such an order when the clerk improperly rejects a filing.  (Rojas v. Cutsforth (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 774, 776-778.)  “[A] paper is deemed filed when it is deposited with the clerk with directions to file the paper.”  (Id. at p. 778.)  “The functions of the clerk are purely ministerial.  [Citation.]  The clerk has no discretion to reject a complaint that substantially conforms to the local rules.”  (Id. at p. 777; accord Mito v. Temple Recycling Center Corp. (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 276, 279-281.)

Plaintiff shows it deposited the complaint with the clerk on May 6, 2024, but the clerk improperly rejected it.  At 4:00 p.m. that day, plaintiff submitted the summons, complaint, and civil case cover sheet to an electronic filing and service provider, One Legal.  (Villalpando Decl., ¶¶ 2-3, Ex. 1.)  The clerk issued a “notice of court rejection of electronic filing”, which stated the court received the papers at 4:01 p.m. on May 6.  (Id., Ex. 2.)  The notice states the filing was rejected because it had the “incorrect court district/court location.”  (Ibid.)  Plaintiff checked the wrong box to identify the reason for assignment to the Central District on the Civil Case Cover Sheet Addendum and Statement of Location.  (Villalpando Decl., ¶¶ 5-6, Ex. 3, p. 7.)  That mistake did not permit the clerk to reject filing the complaint.  The complaint must be deemed filed on May 6, 2024.

Plaintiff Mustache Productions, Inc.’s motion for a nunc pro tunc order correcting the filing date of the complaint to May 6, 2024, is granted. 

The court hereby orders, nunc pro tunc, that plaintiff’s complaint shall be deemed filed on May 6, 2024.  The clerk is directed to correct the filing date on the complaint and in the court’s other records.