Judge Cherol J. Nellon, Case Number: 23STCV17980, Date: 2025-01-28 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 23STCV17980, Date: 2025-01-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV17980 Hearing Date: January 28, 2025 Dept: 14

Case Background

This is an action for breach of contract, common counts, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff alleges Defendant Stubhub sold items of great value and then intentionally devalued them under pressure from the Padres.

On July 31, 2023, Plaintiff filed his Complaint against Stubhub.com.

On June 25, 2024, the Court denied Plaintiff’s first nunc pro tunc motion for failure to file the rejection sheet referenced in the motion.

Plaintiff has not served Defendant. No appearances have been made.

Instant Pleading

Plaintiff moves for an order correcting the date the Complaint was filed from July 31, 2023 to May 1, 2023.

Decision

Plaintiff’s motion to correct the filing date of the Complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Complaint is deemed filed on May 1, 2023.

Legal Standard

“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.” (Code Civ. Proc., section 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.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 2.259(b).)

Discussion

Plaintiff moves to correct the filing date of his Complaint from July 1, 2023 to May 1, 2023. The Court previously denied a motion made on the same grounds because Plaintiff failed to file the rejection sheet describing the reasons why Plaintiff’s first Complaint was rejected. Plaintiff has now filed the rejection sheet.

Plaintiff’s rejection sheet states the original Complaint was rejected because the name in the case caption did not match the name on Plaintiff’s fee waiver. In other words, Plaintiff had not paid the fee and the fee waiver was ineffective due to a discrepancy in Plaintiff’s name. Courts have ruled that where a complaint is rejected for the Plaintiff’s failure to pay a filing fee, the complaint should not be regarded as untimely because the rejection is based merely on a local rule, rather than a jurisdictional requirement. (Carlson v. State of California Department of Fish & Game (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1268, 1278, quoting Cintron v. Union Pacific R. Co. (9th Cir. 1987) 813 F.2d 917, 920.)

Here, because Plaintiff’s rejection was essentially due to his failure to pay a filing fee, the clerk’s rejection should not render the Complaint untimely. Rather, the Complaint was, in legal effect, filed on May 1, 2023, when Plaintiff deposited the Complaint with the Clerk.

Conclusion

Plaintiff’s motion to correct the filing date of the Complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Complaint is deemed filed on May 1, 2023.