Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV02426, Date: 2024-01-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV02426    Hearing Date: January 16, 2024    Dept: C

Amy Suarez, et al. vs Frank Calvillo, et al.

Case No.: 23NWCV02426

Hearing Date: January 16, 2024 @ 10:30 AM

#7

Tentative Ruling:

Plaintiffs Amy Suarez and Alyssa Cadena’s Motion for an Order Nunc Pro Tunc Correcting an E-Filing Error of the Filing Date of The Summons and Compliant is GRANTED.

Background 

In this personal injury action, Plaintiffs AMY SUAREZ, an individual, and ALYSSA CADENA, a minor, by and through her Guardian ad Litem AMY SUAREZ (“Plaintiffs”) allege that on July 28, 2021, Plaintiff Suarez was driving her car northbound on I-605 near Telegraph Road when her vehicle collided with a vehicle operated by Defendant RAFAEL CESPEDES REBOUCAS.

On July 28, 2023, at 1:19 PM, Plaintiffs attempted to file their Complaint alleging Negligence.

On 8/03/23, at 1:19 PM, the Court generated a Notice of Court Rejection of Electronic Filing, citing the reason for the rejection as follows: “Reject Reason Other: Select the word Minor under Subtype for minor party.”

(Ex. 2 to Mot.)

On 8/22/23, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion for an order nunc pro tunc deeming the Summons and Complaint filed on July 28, 2023..

No opposition has been filed as of January 9, 2024. 

ANALYSIS 

Plaintiffs argue that the Court clerk improperly rejected the filing after the two-year statute of limitations expired. In Rojas v. Cutsforth (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 774, the plaintiff in a personal injury action had mailed the complaint to the superior court clerk for filing within the statutory period; however, the clerk returned the unfiled complaint by mail because the declaration for court assignment was not signed and the summons contained the address of the wrong branch of the court. In the meantime, the statute of limitations passed. The trial court denied plaintiff's request for a nunc pro tunc filing of the complaint and granted summary judgment for the defendant on the ground that the plaintiff’s action was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment with instructions to deem the complaint filed when it was first presented. The court held that the clerk had no proper basis for rejecting plaintiffs’ complaint; thus, it was deemed filed on the date that it was first deposited with the clerk. (See also Dillon v. Superior Court of Nevada County (1914) 24 Cal.App. 760, 765–766 [a paper is deemed filed when deposited with the clerk with directions to file the paper]; Carlson v. State of California Department of Fish & Game (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1268.) 

Here, Plaintiffs’ complaint was submitted for filing before the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations and was rejected for reasons unrelated to any legal deficiency in the complaint. Therefore, the Court grants the instant motion, and orders Plaintiffs’ Summons and Complaint to be deemed filed as of July 28, 2023. 

Plaintiffs are reminded to review the May 3, 2019 First Amended General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil. When e-filing documents, parties must comply with the “TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS” which are set forth at page 4, line 4 through page 5, line 12 of the Court’s 5/3/19 First Amended General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil (particularly bookmarking declarations and exhibits). (CRC 3.1110(f)(4).) Failure to comply with these requirements in the future may result in papers being rejected, matters being placed off calendar, matters being continued so documents can be resubmitted in compliance with these requirements, documents not being considered and/or the imposition of sanctions.