Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 24STCV15604, Date: 2025-02-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV15604    Hearing Date: February 6, 2025    Dept: 52

(1) Plaintiff Araseli Cruz’s Motion for Nunc Pro Tunc Order Amending the Filing Date of the Complaint; (2) Defendant David Quiroz Calzada’s Demurrer

(1) Motion to Amend Filing Date

Plaintiff Araseli Cruz moves for a nunc pro tunc order correcting the filing date of the complaint to June 19, 2024, instead of June 21.  Courts may issue such an order when the clerk improperly rejects a filing.  (Rojas v. Cutsforth (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 774, 776-778 (Rojas).)  “[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 June 19, 2024, but the clerk rejected it.  On June 21, the clerk issued a “notice of court rejection of electronic filing” indicating the court received the complaint on June 19, 2024, at 3:50 p.m.  (Panah Decl., Ex. 4.)  The notice states, “This electronic filing was rejected based on the following reason(s) [¶] Reject Reason Other: Jurisdiction amount selected on the data field does not conform to the jurisdiction amount selected on the documents.  Please correct and resubmit.”  (Ibid.) 

A mismatch on the jurisdiction amount did not justify rejecting filing of the complaint.  At most, the mismatch affected whether the case should be categorized as a limited civil action or an unlimited civil action.  Regardless of any problem in categorizing the action, plaintiff deposited it with the clerk with directions to file it on June 19, 2024.  The complaint must be deemed filed on that day. 

Defendant’s reliance on City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County (1968) 264 Cal.App.2d 766 is misplaced.  Rojas, which is directly on point, distinguished that case.  (67 Cal.App.4th at p. 778.) 

Defendant also cites Jonson v. Weinstein (1967) 249 Cal.App.2d 954, 959, which stated, “When a statutory period within which a party or court may act is jurisdictional, the statute may not be defeated by the simple device of a Nunc pro tunc order.”  This case does not assist defendant because it relied on public policy pointing in the opposite direction.  The court explained: “The laws’ policy favors disposition of litigation on the merits.  If a default is traceable to mistake, inadvertence or excusable neglect, its Nunc pro tunc entry would preserve not the legitimate fruits of litigation, but the unfit fruits.  The Nunc pro tunc feature of the order being invalid, the actual date of default entry governs.  Since [defendant’s] motion was presented within six months of that date, it was cognizable as a motion under section 473.”  (Ibid.) 

In Jonson v. Weinstein, the plaintiff sought to prevent trial on the merits by using a nunc pro tunc order to win by default.  Here, defendant seeks to prevent trial on the merits and win on the statute of limitations by opposing a nunc pro tunc order.  The relief plaintiff seeks is proper here for the reasons stated in Rojas.  

Finally, defendant relies on Duran v. St. Luke’s Hospital (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 457.  There, the court affirmed dismissal of a complaint based on the statute of limitations where the complaint was not timely filed because plaintiff underpaid the filing fee by $3.  The court reasoned, “An unbroken line of decisions by our Supreme Court holds that it is mandatory for court clerks to demand and receive the fee required by statute before documents or pleadings are filed.”  (Id. at p. 459.)  The court distinguished Rojas and other cases because they did “not involve the issue of failure to pay a filing fee.”  (Id. at p. 461.)  This case does not involve the issue of failure to pay a filing fee.  Rojas controls here. 

The court will grant plaintiff’s motion.

(2) Defendant David Quiroz Calzada’s Demurrer

Defendant David Quiroz Calzada demurs to plaintiff’s complaint solely on the basis that plaintiff failed to file it within the two-year statute of limitations.  Plaintiff alleges injury from an auto accident on June 19, 2022.  (Comp., ¶ 9.)  For the reasons discussed above, the complaint must be deemed filed on June 19, 2024.  The statute of limitations does not bar plaintiff’s complaint.

Disposition

Plaintiff Araseli Cruz’s motion for a nunc pro tunc order amending the filing date of the complaint is granted. 

The court hereby orders, nunc pro tunc, that plaintiff’s complaint shall be deemed filed on June 19, 2024.  The clerk is directed to correct the filing date on the complaint and in the court’s other records.

Defendant David Quiroz Calzada’s demurrer is overruled.  Defendant shall answer plaintiff’s complaint within 15 days.