Judge: Deirdre Hill, Case: 22TRCV00829, Date: 2023-01-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22TRCV00829    Hearing Date: January 26, 2023    Dept: M

Hearing Date:                         January 26, 2023

Moving Parties:                      Plaintiff Atlantic Specialty Insurance Company a/s/o One Beacon An Intact Company

Responding Party:                  None

Motion to Correct Filing Date of Complaint

            The court considered the moving papers.

RULING

            The motion is GRANTED.  The complaint is deemed to be filed September 2, 2022.

BACKGROUND

On September 15, 2022, plaintiff Atlantic Specialty Insurance Company a/s/o One Beacon An Intact Company filed a complaint for subrogation against Bennie Norman Adams and Jared Evan Hill.

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff Atlantic Specialty Insurance Company a/s/o One Beacon An Intact Company requests that the court correct the filing date of the complaint from September 15, 2022 to September 2, 2022.

            Plaintiff explains that on September 2, 2022, plaintiff submitted the summons and complaint for filing.  On September 12, 2022, plaintiff received notice from the clerk’s office that pages three and four of the complaint were missing and that plaintiff’s name contained a typo.  On September 15, 2022, plaintiff revised the complaint and resent it for filing “with a note asking the clerk to back date the Summons and Complaint to the date” that plaintiff originally submitted it for filing for the purposes of avoiding the expiration of the statute of limitations. 

Plaintiff contends that counsel was not made aware of an issue regarding the filing of the summons and complaint until ten days after the documents were submitted for filing  Plaintiff asserts that had counsel known sooner than ten days, perhaps before the statute of limitations expired on September 6, 2022, plaintiff could have revised the complaint, resubmitted it with the signature page, and had it submitted to the court in time for filing.  See Alexander V. Hettena, Esq. decl.

The court rules as follows:  The court finds that plaintiffs attempted to file a complaint that substantially conforms to the local rules through e-Delivery.  Under CCP §1010.6, “(b) A trial court may adopt local rules permitting electronic filing of documents, subject to rules adopted pursuant to subdivision (e) and the following conditions: . . . (3) Any document received electronically by the court between 12:00 a.m. and 11:59:50 p.m. on a court day shall be deemed filed on that court day. . . .”  See also Local Rule 3.4(c), which is same as CCP §1010.6(b)(3).  See also Carlson v. State of California Department of Fish & Game (1998) 68 Cal. App. 4th 1268, 1270 (“[W]e . . . hold that the 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.  Plaintiff’s complaint was hence effectively filed when it was first presented to the clerk, and the statute of limitations therefore did not run.”).  Further, under Rojas v. Cutsforth (1998) 67 Cal. App. 4th 774, 778 “[t]he clerk has no discretion to reject a complaint that substantially conforms to the local rules.”  In Rojas, a complaint was rejected because the declaration of court assignment was unsigned when first presented (before expiration of statute of limitations).  Moreover, under Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 2.118(c), the court may “permit the filing of papers that do not comply with the rules in this chapter” for good cause shown.

For the reasons stated above, the motion is GRANTED. 

The court orders that the complaint is deemed filed on September 2, 2022.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of ruling.