Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 24BBCV00014, Date: 2024-03-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24BBCV00014    Hearing Date: March 29, 2024    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.   Allegations

Plaintiff Lisa Alfonso (“Plaintiff”) alleges that from 1996 to 2001, she was a victim of domestic violence perpetrated by an LAPD officer and a resultant cover-up of the unlawful behavior by the LAPD.  Plaintiff alleges that Defendant City of Los Angeles (“City”) is a municipality and that the Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”) is a branch or agency of City.  Plaintiff alleges that from 1996 to 1997, Defendant Officer Anibal Michael Lopez (“Officer Lopez”) sexually assaulted and threatened to sexually assault Plaintiff while he was engaged in his official duties as an LAPD officer.  Plaintiff alleges that LAPD was aware of the sexual harassment and abuse that Plaintiff was subjected to by Officer Lopez. 

The complaint, filed January 3, 2024, alleges causes of action for: (1) sexual battery; (2) gender violence; (3) sexual assault; (4) negligence; (5) violation of the Bane Act; (6) violation of the Ralph Act; (7) IIED; (8) NIED; and (9) conspiracy. 

B.    Motion on Calendar

On January 8, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for an order tolling the statute of limitations on Plaintiff’s causes of action or, in the alternative, to accept the complaint as timely filed nunc pro tunc. 

On March 18, 2024, City filed a notice of non-opposition to the motion, stating that it does not oppose an order tolling the statute of limitations applicable to the causes of action alleged in the complaint for the period beginning on December 29, 2023 until January 3, 2024, which will render the complaint timely filed.  City states that it does not concede any other issues, regarding whether the statute of limitations in CCP §§ 340.16 bars this suit.

On March 18, 2024, Officer Lopez filed a notice of non-opposition to the motion on the same grounds as City. 

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff moves for an order tolling the statute of limitations applicable to the causes of action alleged in the complaint from December 29, 2023 to January 3, 2024 pursuant to CCP § 1010.6(e)(4)(E).  Alternatively, she moves for the Court to accept the complaint as timely filed and to enter an order permitting the complaint to be filed nunc pro tunc to December 29, 2023. 

Plaintiff relies on CCP § 1010.6(e)(4)(E), which states: “A trial court may adopt local rules permitting electronic filing of documents, subject to rules adopted by the Judicial Council pursuant to subdivision (h) and the following conditions: … (E) 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.”  (CCP § 1010.6(e)(4)(E).) 

Plaintiff provides the declaration of her counsel, Arick Fudali, Esq. Mr. Fudali states that Plaintiff submitted her complaint and supporting document to the court’s e-filing platform on December 29, 2023 through the electronic service provider USA Express Legal & Investigative Services, Inc. (“EFSP”).  (Fudali Decl., ¶4, Ex. A.)  On December 29, 2023 at 4:47 p.m. Plaintiff’s paralegal, Deondra Richardson, received a court e-file Order Confirmation via email from EFSP indicating that Plaintiff’s December 29, 2023 filing had “been electronically transmitted to the court today (Fri, Dec 29, 2023).”  (Id., Ex. 6, Ex. A.)   On January 2, 2024, Ms. Richardson received an email from EFSP that Plaintiff’s December 29, 2023 filing had been rejected.  (Id., ¶7, Ex. B [rejection email], Exs. C-F [attached complaint, notice of e-filing rejection, civil case cover sheet, and summons].)  The notice of rejection indicated that the Court received the documents on December 29, 2023 at 4:47 p.m. and that Defendants’ names varied throughout the summons, complaint, and e-filing portal.  (Id., ¶8, Ex. D.)  Mr. Fudali states that the only variation he saw was that the complaint’s caption listed as a defendant “ANIBAL MICHAEL LOPEZ, individually and in his official capacity as a police officer for the Los Angeles Police Department,” but the summons listed him only as “ANIBAL MICHAEL LOPEZ.”  (Id., ¶9.)  He states that Ms. Richardson was not in the office on January 2, 2024 and did not view the rejection email until January 3, 2024.  (Id., ¶10.)  Ms. Richardson then proceeded to update the December 29, 2023 filing to cure the stated reason in the rejection and refiled the documents on January 3, 2024 at 9:19 a.m.  (Id., ¶11, Ex. G.)  The January 3, 2024 updated filing was accepted by the Court on January 3, 2024 at 10:57 a.m.  (Id., ¶12, Ex. H.)  

The Court finds that there is substantive merit to granting this motion.  The Court will toll the statute of limitations from December 29, 2023 to January 3, 2024.

 As indicated above, City and Officer Lopez do not oppose this motion.  The motion is granted. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Lisa Alfonso’s motion for an order tolling the statute of limitations on Plaintiff’s causes of action is granted.  The statute of limitations is tolled from December 29, 2023 (when the complaint was initially filed and then later rejected) to January 3, 2024 (when the complaint was refiled and accepted after curing the defects).