Judge Curtis A. Kin, Case Number: 24STCP01625, Date: 2024-09-10 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 24STCP01625, Date: 2024-09-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCP01625 Hearing Date: September 10, 2024 Dept: 86

MOTION FOR AN ORDER DEEMING THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT

FILED ON MAY 16, 2024

Date: 9/10/24 (1:30 PM)

Case: KNT Downtown LA LLC v. City of Los Angeles et al. (24STCP01625)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Petitioner KNT Downtown LA LLC’s Motion for an Order Deeming the Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint Filed on May 16, 2024 is GRANTED.

Petitioner’s request for judicial notice is DENIED as “unnecessary to the resolution” of the issues before the Court. (Martinez v. San Diego County Credit Union (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 1048, 1075.)

On Thursday, May 16, 2024, petitioner electronically submitted the following document for filing: “Verified Petition and Complaint for (1) Writ of Mandate – CCP § 1094.5; (2) Writ of Mandate – CCP § 1085; (3) Declaratory Relief; (4) Injunctive Relief; (5) Denial of Due Process – 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (6) Regulatory Taking; (7) Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage; (8) Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage; (9) Intentional Interference with Contractual Relationships” (“Petition and Complaint”). (Hallock Decl. ¶ 4 & Ex. 1; Ryan Decl. ¶ 4.) At 1:23 p.m. on May 16, 2024, petitioner received confirmation that the Petition and Complaint was electronically submitted for filing with filing fees having been paid. (Hallock Decl. ¶ 5; Ryan Decl. ¶ 5 & Ex. 4.)

On Friday, May 17, 2024, petitioner received a “Notice of Court Rejection of Electronic Filing” (“Rejection Notice”). (Hallock Decl. ¶ 6 & Ex. 2; Ryan Decl. ¶ 7.) The reason given on the Rejection Notice was “Initial document can not be a Complaint and Petition, it has to be Complaint or Petition.” (Hallock Decl. ¶ 6 & Ex. 2.) On May 17, 2024, petitioner’s counsel called the clerk’s office and spoke with three different people after the Rejection Notice. None of the people with whom counsel spoke provided any further reason for the rejection of the Petition and Complaint. Counsel was instructed to file a petition and complaint separately. (Hallock Decl. ¶ 7.)

On Monday, May 20, 2024, counsel spoke with a supervisor and manager of the clerk’s office. (Hallock Decl. ¶¶ 9-11.) The manager informed counsel that there was no rule prohibiting the filing of a petition and complaint in one document but it was a policy of the clerk. (Hallock Decl. ¶ 11.) The manager told counsel that the clerk’s office would not accept the filing unless “Verified Petition and Complaint” in the title of the document was changed to “Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint.” (Hallock Decl. ¶¶ 11, 12.) Counsel made the requested change to the title and made no other changes to the Petition and Complaint. (Hallock Decl. ¶¶ 13, 14 & Ex. 3.) On May 20, 2024, counsel had the Petition and Complaint with the amended title filed, which was accepted for filing on the same day. (Hallock Decl. ¶ 14.)

On July 9, 2024, petitioner filed a motion for order deeming the filing date of the Petition and Complaint to be May 16, 2024.

“[T]he local Superior Court may not condition the filing of a complaint on local rule requirements. Instead, so long as a complaint complies with state requirements, the clerk has a ministerial duty to file. In legal effect, a complaint is ‘filed’ when it is presented to the clerk for filing in the form required by state law.” (Carlson v. State of California Department of Fish & Game (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1268, 1270.)

The Petition and Complaint submitted for filing on May 16, 2024 complied with state requirements. CCP § 422.30 provides, as relevant here, that every pleading shall contain a caption setting forth the title of the action. (CCP § 422.30(a)(2); see also CCP § 422.10 [civil pleadings include complaints].) In addition, as pertinent to the instant motion, Rule of Court 2.111 sets forth the required format of the first page of each paper filed in California trial courts. Underneath the case number, for all complaints and petitions, the “character of the action or proceeding” must be stated. (Rule of Court 2.111(6). Petitioner’s filing on May 16, 2024 stated, “Verified Petition and Complaint for (1) Writ of Mandate – CCP § 1094.5; (2) Writ of Mandate – CCP § 1085; (3) Declaratory Relief; (4) Injunctive Relief; (5) Denial of Due Process – 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (6) Regulatory Taking; (7) Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage; (8) Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage; (9) Intentional Interference with Contractual Relationships.” (Hallock Decl. ¶ 4 & Ex. 1.) From the entirety of the title, it can be ascertained that the character of the action was a Petition for Writ of Mandate (1^st and 2^ndcauses of action) and a Complaint with seven civil claims (3^rd through 9^th causes of action). Petitioner’s May 16, 2024 submission of the Petition and Complaint for filing complied with CCP § 422.30 and Rule of Court 2.111.

The clerk’s office rejected the Petition and Complaint because the first paper that commences a proceeding purportedly cannot be a petition and a complaint. (Hallock Decl. ¶ 6 & Ex. 2.) Such a combined pleading has been approved by the California Supreme Court. (See Hensler v. City of Glendale (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1, 14 [“an ‘as applied’ challenge to the development restrictions imposed by the administrative agency, may be properly made in a petition for writ of ‘administrative’ mandamus to review the final administrative decision [citation] and that action may be joined with one for inverse condemnation”].) In their opposition, respondents City of Los Angeles and Los Angeles Housing Department do not cite any rule requiring an initial filing to be either a petition or complaint.

Respondents City of Los Angeles and Los Angeles Housing Department also argue that the May 16, 2024 submission was “poorly drafted by being entitled ‘VERIFIED PETITION AND COMPLAINT’ which was made more confusing by listing all nine claims collectively under both headings rather than clearly dominating the pleading as containing a Petition for Writ

of Mandate and Complaint alleging seven civil claims.” (Opp. at 2:28-3:4.) Respondents cite no authority indicating that petitioner was required to expressly designate which claims are part of the Petition and which claims are part of the Complaint. While the clerk’s office is required to reject papers that do not comply with the Rules of Court (Rule of Court 2.118) or state statutes (see Duran v. St. Luke's Hospital (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 457, 459 [clerk’s office properly rejected filing of complaint for failure to pay entire filing fee]), petitioner appears to have complied with all such rules and statutes. To the extent that the clerk’s office has a policy of rejecting an initial filing that is a combined petition and complaint, “[T]here is no comparable authorization in state law directing or permitting a clerk to refuse to file a paper for failure to comply with a local rule.” (See Carlson, 68 Cal.App.4th at 1272-73.)

Respondents also argue that the instant motion is a disguised summary adjudication motion because it would essentially adjudicate the merit of their statute of limitations and exhaustion of administrative remedies defenses. This motion is not brought under CCP § 437c. Petitioner is entitled to correct errors in filing dates when the filings were improperly rejected. (See Rojas v. Cutsforth (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 774, 778 [holding that complaint should be deemed filed on date presented when clerk had no proper basis to reject complaint].) That the corrected filing date may have some consequential impact on asserted defenses does not somehow convert the instant motion into an improper motion for summary adjudication.

The May 16, 2024 filing was improperly rejected due to the incorrect assertion that an initial filing cannot be a petition and a complaint. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED. No material difference appearing between the Petition and Complaint submitted for filing on May 16, 2024 and the Petition and Complaint accepted for filing on May 20, 2024 (compare Hallock Decl. ¶¶ 4, 13 & Exs. 1, 3), the Petition and Complaint is deemed filed on May 16, 2024. The docket and records and files of this case shall so reflect.