Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 21STCV45612, Date: 2023-10-30 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV45612 Hearing Date: October 30, 2023 Dept: 27
Tentative Ruling
Judge Lee Arian, Department 27
HEARING DATE: October 30, 2023 TRIAL DATE: March
5, 2024
CASE: Ami Lanelle Dorian v. Maamar M. Susini, et al.
CASE NO.: 21STCV45612
MOTION
FOR AN ORDER NUNC PRO TUNC
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff
Fernando Dorian Ruiz
RESPONDING PARTY: No opposition
This is a consolidated action arising from a May 27, 2021 pedestrian
bicyclist versus motor vehicle accident.
On May 24, 2023, Plaintiff Fernando Dorian Ruiz filed a complaint against
Defendant Maamar M. Susini for Loss of Consortium arising from the May 27, 2021
accident. Due to a technical defect,
Plaintiff’s Complaint was rejected. On June
5, 2023, Plaintiff successfully filed the Complaint.
Plaintiff now moves for an order nunc pro tunc to correct
the Complaint’s filing date from June 5, 2023, to the filing date of May 24,
2023.
The motion
is unopposed.
The Court
has inherent authority to enter retroactive orders. (See Scalice v. Performance Cleaning
Systems¿(1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 221, 238-239.) A request for a retroactive order “is to be
granted or refused as justice may require in view of the circumstances of a
particular case.” (Young v. Gardner-Denver Co.¿(1966) 244 Cal.App.2d
915, 919.)
Here,
Plaintiff submits the declaration of Amir Kermani (“Kermani”), who is a legal
assistant at Plaintiff’s counsel law firm. Kermani states he e-filed
Plaintiff’s Complaint, Summons, Statement of Location, and Civil Case Coversheet
with the Journal Technology Court Portal on May 24, 2023. (Declaration of
Amir Kermani, ¶¿3.) The filing was rejected on May 26, 2023 because the
Civil Case Coversheet did not go through.
(Declaration of Amir Kermani, ¶¶¿3, 5; Exhibit 3.) After an
additional attempt, the filing was finally accepted on June 5, 2023. (Declaration
of Amir Kermani, ¶ 7; Exhibit 4.) Kermani contacted the E-Filing
Department Supervising Clerk, Christine Meeks, who, after reviewing the
accepted and rejected filings, concluded that the rejection was an error. (Declaration of Amir Kermani, ¶ 7.) Plaintiff thus argues correction of the
filing date from June 5, 2023, to May 24, 2023, is proper because Plaintiff
timely presented his Complaint to the Clerk of the Court for filing during
business hours on May 24, 2023. Consequently,
Plaintiff’s action commenced on that date; i.e., within the statute of
limitations. (See Carlson v. Department of Fish & Game (1998)
68 Cal.app.4th 1268, 1270-1274; United Farm Workers of America v.
Agricultural Labor Relations Board (1985) 37 Cal.3d 912, 918 [for purposes
of the statute of limitations, “filing” means delivery to the clerk during
business hours].) As such, the rejection of a filing for a technical
defect is not relevant to the timeliness of the filing.
Based on
the foregoing, the Court grants the unopposed motion.
Moving
party to give notice.
Dated: October 30,
2023 ___________________________________
Lee
Arian
Judge
of the Superior Court
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an
email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on
the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at
www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative
and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless
appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a
submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others
might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive
emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and
there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion,
adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.