Judge: Deirdre Hill, Case: 22TRCV00934, Date: 2023-05-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22TRCV00934    Hearing Date: May 18, 2023    Dept: M

Hearing Date:             May 16, 2023 

Moving Parties:          Plaintiff Michael Deuschel    

Responding Party:      Defendant City of El Segundo

Motion for Order Seeking Relief from Plaintiff’s Mistake and Inadvertence and Court Failures

            The court considered the moving and opposition papers.

RULING

            The motion is GRANTED. The court orders that the complaint is deemed filed on October 11, 2022.  

BACKGROUND

            On October 14, 2022, plaintiff Michael Deuschel filed a complaint against the City of El Segundo for (1) violation of Title II of the ADA, (2) violation of Title II of the ADA, (3) violation of 42 U.S. Code § 1983, (4) violation of due process, (5) violation of § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, (6) violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, (7) violation of Government Code § 11135, (8) violation of California Constitution – Equal Protection, (9) retaliation, (10) negligence, (11) fraud, (12) declaratory relief, and (13) injunctive relief.

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff requests that the court correct the date of the filing of the Summons and Complaint to October 11, 2022, pursuant to CCP § 473 and California Rules of Court rule 2.259. As plaintiff’s tort claim petition was rejected by the City of El Segundo on April 11, 2022, the last day for plaintiff to file his tort claim against the city was October 11, 2022. (Gov. Code § 945.6(a)(1).)

            Plaintiff states that he prepared the complaint on April 10, 2022, and intended to personally file the documents. (Deuschel Decl. ¶ 8.) However, he states that, due to his disabilities and injuries, he was too ill to travel to the courthouse. (Deuschel Decl. ¶ 8.) Plaintiff then used a legal service to prepare the documents to be electronically filed. (Deuschel Decl. ¶ 9.)

            Plaintiff states that, on October 11, 2022, at about 12:59am, Plaintiff uploaded his documents via the electronic filing service. (Deuschel Decl. ¶ 9; Exhibit 1.)  However, plaintiff states that he inadvertently double-filed one document and accidentally omitted filing the Civil Case Cover Sheet Addendum. (Deuschel Decl. ¶ 9.)  This error caused the court to reject his submission on October 12, 2022, at 11:26am. (Deuschel Decl. ¶ 12; Exhibits 1-2.) Plaintiff promptly refiled the documents, but they were rejected again because the matter should have been filed in the Torrance Courthouse. (Deuschel Decl. ¶ 13; Exhibit 3.)

            Plaintiff argues that if he were physically able to file the documents in-person at Stanley Mosk Courthouse, which is easier for him to access via public transportation, the papers would have been submitted within the time limits because he would have been advised of the error at the time of filing. Additionally, he states that if the court had promptly responded to his filing later in the day on October 11, 2022, as opposed to October 12, 2022, plaintiff would have re-filed the same day.  (Deuschel Decl. ¶ 22.)

            Defendant argues that the six-month deadline under section 945.6 is strict and cannot be extended for any reason. Here, plaintiff does not ask for the deadline to be extended, but rather asks for the date of his complaint filing to be altered to reflect the date that he first submitted his electronic complaint.

            The court rules as follows:  The court finds that plaintiff 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). 

Further, “if the clerk of the court does not file a complaint…because the complaint…does not comply with applicable filing requirements…, any statute of limitations applicable to the causes of action alleged in the complaint…shall be tolled for the period beginning on the date on which the court received the document and as shown on the confirmation of receipt described in subparagraph (A), through the later of either the date on which the clerk of the court sent the notice of rejection described in subparagraph (C) or the date on which the electronic filing service provider or electronic filing manager sent the notice of rejection as described in subparagraph (D), plus one additional day if the complaint or cross complaint is subsequently submitted in a form that corrects the errors which caused the document to be rejected. (CCP § 1010.6 (e)(4)(E).)

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 October 11, 2022.  

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of ruling.