Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 23AHCV01320, Date: 2023-08-10 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23AHCV01320 Hearing Date: August 10, 2023 Dept: X
Tentative Ruling
Judge Joel L. Lofton,
Department X
HEARING DATE: August 10, 2023 TRIAL DATE: No date set.
CASE: MATEO GOMEZ; RUTH
GOMEZ; and GRACE GOMEZ by and through her Guardian ad Litem Mateo Gomez, v.
VICTOR PALLARES, and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive.
CASE NO.: 23AHCV01320
MOTION
FOR ORDER NUNC PRO TUNC
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Mateo Gomez, Ruth Gomez,
and Grace Gomez
RESPONDING PARTY: No
response filed.
SERVICE: Filed July 18, 2023
RELIEF
REQUESTED
Plaintiffs move for an order nun
pro tunc correcting the date of the complaint to be the original date of
receipt of the documents.
BACKGROUND
This case arises out of Plaintiffs
Mateo Gomez, Ruth Gomez, and Grace Gomez’s (“Plaintiff”) personal injury claim
for a motor vehicle incident that occurred on May 21, 2021. Plaintiffs’
complaint states that the original complaint was filed on June 9, 2023.
TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiffs’
motion for an order nunc pro tunc is DENIED.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs’ counsel provides that he
attempted to file the complaint for this action on May 19, 2023, prior to the applicable
statute of limitations. (Villarreal Decl. ¶ 2. ) Counsel provides that on May 22, 2023, Plaintiffs
were provided with a notice of rejection of filing. (Id. ¶ 3.) Counsel
resubmitted the documents, but the documents were again rejected on May 23,
2023. (Id. ¶ 4.) Counsel provides that on June 1, 2023, he attempted to
file the documents again, but received another notice of rejection. (Id. ¶
5.) Counsel provides that the documents were finally accepted on June 9, 2023.
(Ibid.)
“Unless otherwise provided, a document is deemed filed on the date it is
received by the court clerk.” (California Rules of Court, Rule 1.20.) “ ‘All courts have the inherent power to enter orders Nunc pro
tunc to show that a thing was done at one time which ought to have been shown
at that time.” (Martin v. Martin (1970) 2 Cal.3d 752, 760-61.)
Plaintiffs
seek an order correcting the date of filing to backdate to the date that
documents were received by the clerk of the court. However, such an order is
unnecessary.
“If the
clerk of the court does not file a complaint or cross complaint because the
complaint or cross complaint does not comply with applicable filing
requirements or the required filing fee has not been paid, any statute of
limitations applicable to the causes of action alleged in the complaint or
cross 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. The party filing the complaint or cross complaint shall not make any
change to the complaint or cross complaint other than those required to correct
the errors which caused the document to be rejected.” (Code of Civ. Proc.
section 1010.6, subdivision (e)(4)(E).)
If
Plaintiffs can comply with the above code section, the statute of limitations
shall be tolled.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs’
motion for an order nunc pro tunc is DENIED.
Dated: August 10,
2023 ___________________________________
Joel
L. Lofton
Judge
of the Superior Court
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court
indicating their
intention to submit.
Parties intending to appear are strongly encouraged to appear remotely. alhdeptx@lacourt.org