Judge Cherol J. Nellon, Case Number: 23STCV17980, Date: 2024-06-25 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 23STCV17980, Date: 2024-06-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV17980 Hearing Date: June 25, 2024 Dept: 14

#8

Case Background

Plaintiff is in pro per. Plaintiff alleges Defendant Stubhub sold items of great value and then intentionally devalued them under pressure from the Padres.

Plaintiff filed a complaint on July 31, 2023 alleging breach of contract, common counts, interference with business relations, fraud, oppression, malice, breach of agreements, representations, business slander, intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff’s complaint is poorly drafted and does not contain separate attachments for each cause of action. Plaintiff’s allegations are nearly incomprehensible.

Plaintiff has not served Defendant. No appearances have been made. Plaintiff obtained a fee waiver on August 1, 2023.

There is no trial date.

Motion for Nunc Pro Tunc Filing Complaint to Original Upload/Filing Date 5/1/23 in 23LA00642793

Plaintiff moves the Court for an order correcting the file date of this complaint to May 1, 2023. Plaintiff attempted to file a complaint based on the same facts alleged here on May 1, 2023 and the complaint was rejected for filing for insignificant errors.

Decision

The motion is DENIED. Plaintiff fails to submit the rejection sheet for the complaint he purportedly filed on May 1, 2023, nor does it appear that he attempted to file the May 1, 2023 complaint in this action. There is no record of a rejected complaint in this action, Case No. 23STCV17980.

Governing Standard/Statute

“The court may, upon motion of the injured party, or its own motion, correct clerical mistakes in its judgment or orders as entered, so as to conform to the judgment or order directed, and may, on motion of either party after notice to the other party, set aside any void judgment or order.” (CCP §473(d).)

“It is well settled that a court has the inherent power to correct a clerical error in its judgment so that the judgment will reflect the true facts. The power of a court to correct clerical mistakes in judgments is also a statutory power pursuant to section 473.” (Estate of Douglas (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 690, 695.)

“A clerical error in the judgment includes inadvertent errors made by the court which cannot reasonably be attributed to the exercise of judicial consideration or discretion. Clerical error is to be distinguished from judicial error which cannot be corrected by amendment. The distinction between clerical error and judicial error is whether the error was made in rendering the judgment, or in recording the judgment rendered. Any attempt by a court, under the guise of correcting clerical error, to revise its deliberately exercised judicial discretion is not permitted. A judicial error is the deliberate result of judicial reasoning and determination The term ‘clerical error’ covers all errors, mistakes, or omissions which are not the result of the exercise of the judicial function. If an error, mistake, or omission is the result of inadvertence, but for which a different judgment would have been rendered, the error is clerical and the judgment may be corrected.” (Estate of Douglas, supra, 83 Cal.App.5th at 695.)

“Where…the defect…is insubstantial, the clerk should file the complaint and notify the attorney or party that the perceived defect should be corrected at the earliest opportunity. That should create no more difficulty than returning all the documents with a notice pointing out the defects….The functions of the clerk are purely ministerial. The clerk has no discretion to reject a complaint that substantially conforms to the local rules.” (Rojas v. Cutsforth (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 774, 777–778.) A “paper is deemed filed when it is deposited with the clerk with directions to file the paper.” (Id. at 778.) The clerk does not have the authority to reject a complaint that is filed in conformity with the state court rules but fails to comply with a local rule. (Carlson v. State of California Department of Fish & Game (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1268, 1272-1273 (clerk had no authority to reject complaint for filing based on failure to include Certificate of Assignment required by local rule).)

“If the clerk does not file a document because it does not comply with applicable filing requirements or because the required filing fee has not been paid, the court must promptly send notice of the rejection of the document for filing to the electronic filer. The notice must state the reasons that the document was rejected for filing.” (CRC Rule 2.259(b).)

Discussion

Plaintiff asks that the Court correct the filing date of the complaint filed in this action on July 31, 2023 to May 1, 2023. Plaintiff argues the clerk improperly rejected his complaint filed on May 1, 2023 based on inconsistencies in the names of the Plaintiff and Defendant.

Plaintiff fails to submit the rejection sheet issued by the clerk as to the May 1, 2023 complaint. The Court cannot find that the proposed complaint submitted on May 1, 2023 was improperly rejected due to clerical error without the rejection sheet. Plaintiff’s explanation of the grounds for rejection is unclear. The Court also cannot rely on Plaintiff’s summary of the rejection sheet.

In addition, Plaintiff is asking that the Court deem the filing date of the complaint in this action to be May 1, 2023. However, Plaintiff appears to be referencing a separate case number in his caption, “23LA00642793.” This is not a valid case number. If the May 1, 2023 complaint was improperly rejected in “23LA00642793,” then the nunc pro tunc order would be in that case, not in this case.

Conclusion

Plaintiff fails to establish that the May 1, 2023 complaint was rejected due to clerical error and must be corrected nunc pro tunc by adjusting the filing date of the complaint filed on July 31, 2023 in this action.

The motion is DENIED.