Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 23NWCV03455, Date: 2024-05-28 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV03455, Date: 2024-05-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV03455 Hearing Date: May 28, 2024 Dept: C

QUINTEROS, ET AL. V. DE SANTIAGO DIAZ, ET AL.

CASE NO: 23NWCV03455

HEARING: May 28, 2024 @ 10:30 AM

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Quinteros’ Motion for a Nunc Pro Tunc Order Correcting an E-Filing Error of the Filing Date of the Summons and Complaint is CONTINUED to June 11, 2024 at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. SE-C.

Plaintiff to give notice.

Plaintiffs move for a Nunc Pro Tunc order correcting an E-Filing error of the filing date of the Summons and Complaint.

Background

This is a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident on October 21, 2021, near Elizabeth Street, near Atlantic Avenue, in Cudahy, California. (Declaration of Heather Tanaka (“Tanaka Decl.”), ¶ 5.) Plaintiffs Laura Quinteros and Celeste Sotelos (collectively “Plaintiffs”) allege two causes of action against Defendants Genaro de Santiago Diaz and Denice Yazmin Huerta (collectively “Defendants”) for (1) Motor Vehicle and (2) General Negligence. (Tanaka Decl., ¶ 6.) The two-year statute of limitations to file this action expired on October 21, 2023. (Tanaka Decl., Exhibit A.)

Legal Standard

California Rules of Court, Rule 5.560(f) provides that clerical errors in judgments, orders, or other parts of the record may be corrected by the court at any time on the court’s own motion or on motion of any party and may be entered Nunc Pro Tunc.

The Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles Local Court Rules Rule 4.29(f)(1) explains that when a signed order contains a clerical error, a party may obtain a corrected order by filing an application and presenting a proposed Nunc Pro Tunc order correcting the error. The application for a Nunc Pro Tunc order must include a supporting declaration and a proposed order.

The order must substantially state the following:

“Upon the consideration of the application of _____________, to correct a clerical error, the (identify the order to be corrected, giving the title and date thereof) is corrected, by striking the following (set forth the portion to be corrected) and by inserting in lieu thereof the following (set forth the corrected language)”. To prevent confusion, the proposed order must strike the entire erroneous clause or sentence and then restate it as corrected.”

(Los Angeles Ct. Rule 4.29(f)(2).)

Discussion

On October 18, 2023, Plaintiff's counsel forwarded the summons, complaint, and Civil Case Sheet with addendum to CalWest, a company whose services Plaintiff’s counsel had previously utilized. CalWest submitted the documents to the Court on October 18, 2023 at 11:20 a.m. On October 20, 2023, the court rejected Service of Electronic filing, instructing Plaintiff’s counsel to “under subtype in Case Information input screen, select under Subtype “Minor'' for minor party and “GAL'' for Guardian Ad Litem party. (Harutyunyan Decl.,¶¶ 5-6.)

Immediately afterwards, CalWest submitted the same documents for filing while following the court’s instructions. This time however, the service of electronic filing was rejected on October 26, 2023. Here again, the court instructed Plaintiff’s counsel to “in case info screen input for Laura Quinteros under subtype, select GAL and under minor subtype select only minor.” (Harutyunyan Decl.,¶¶ 7.)

Immediately upon receipt of notification that the documents had again been rejected, Plaintiff’s counsel and attorney service CalWest submitted the same documents for filing while following the court’s instructions. This time the documents were accepted for filing. The third submitted complaint was filed on October 26, 2023, five days after the statute of limitations had run. (Harutyunyan Decl.,¶¶ 8.)

Plaintiff contends that they had properly completed all of the necessary forms for E-filing of the Summons, Complaint, and Civil Case Sheet with Addendum on October 18, 2023. Plaintiff argues that the rejection of these documents was an improper clerical error, which could lead to a suffering of injustice.

In opposition, the Defendants contend that the motion should be denied for two reasons. First, because Plaintiff failed to attach a proposed order as required by Los Angeles Superior Court Local Rule 4.29 (f). The second reason is that it would be improper for this Court to issue an order Nunc Pro Tunc amending the filing date, as it will be made solely to remedy perceived judicial error, and in doing so will inevitably materially change the order originally rendered.

Although no party has cited Rojas v. Cutsforth (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 774, the Court finds Rojas instructive. In Rojas, a 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 technical reasons, not any legal deficiency in the complaint. Therefore, the Court is inclined to grant the motion and deem Plaintiffs’ Summons and Complaint filed as of October 18, 2023.

However, upon review, the Court finds that although Plaintiffs have filed a proposed order, it does not follow the local rules. The Court CONTINUES the hearing on the motion to allow Plaintiffs an opportunity to refile the Proposed Order to comply with Local Rule 4.29(f)(2).

Accordingly, the hearing is CONTINUED to Tuesday, June 11, 2024 at 9:30 a.m. in Department SE-C. Plaintiff is ordered to file and serve a revised Proposed Order by June 4, 2024.