TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Robert Johnson, Individually and as Heir and Successor-in-Interest to Patricia Johnson, Deceased’s Motion to Acknowledge and/or Declare the Original Filing Date Nunc Pro Tunc of This Matter is DENIED.

Plaintiff Robert Johnson, Individually and as Heir and Successor-in-Interest to Patricia Johnson, Deceased, to give notice.

REASONING

Plaintiff Robert Johnson, Individually and as Heir and Successor-in-Interest to Patricia Johnson, Deceased (“Plaintiff”) moves the Court for an order deeming the complaint in the within action filed as of September 22, 2023. Plaintiff’s counsel represents in the motion that “[d]ue to an inadvertent error in naming more than one type of case in the Civil Case Cover Sheet Addendum and Statement of Location, referencing the multiple causes of action of the Complaint, the Complaint and associated documents were rejected on September 26, 2023.” (Mot., p. 1, l. 27-p. 2, l. 3.) While this appears to be supported by Exhibit A to the motion, Plaintiff has not identified a basis for amending the filing date.

California Rules of Court, rule 5.560(f) provides that “[c]lerical 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 filing date of September 28, 2023, was not a clerical error; rather, it was the result of the transmitter’s error in filing the action. 

Similarly, section 7(a)(i) of Los Angeles Superior Court’s First Amended General Order re: Mandatory Electronic Filing states, “Any document received electronically by the court between 12:00 am and 11:59:59 pm shall be deemed to have been effectively filed on that court day if accepted for filing. Any document received electronically on a non-court day, is deemed to have been effectively filed on the next court day if accepted.” Section 7(a)(ii) of the same order states, “Notwithstanding any other provision of this order, if a digital document is not filed in due course because of: (1) an interruption in service; (2) a transmission error that is not the fault of the transmitter; or (3) a processing failure that occurs after receipt, the Court may order, either on its own motion or by noticed motion submitted with a declaration for Court consideration, that the document be deemed filed and/or that the document’s filing date conform to the attempted transmission date.” However, the complaint was not rejected due to a transmission error that was not the fault of the transmitter; instead the complaint was rejected due to transmission error that was the fault of the transmitter.

While the Court could conceivably amend the filing date pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b), as Plaintiff may be subject to a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding against him due to this error, Plaintiff has not moved under this statute, nor has he provided the Court with a basis to relieve him from counsel’s error without an affidavit of fault and before the judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding has been taken against Plaintiff.

Accordingly, Plaintiff Robert Johnson, Individually and as Heir and Successor-in-Interest to Patricia Johnson, Deceased’s Motion to Acknowledge and/or Declare the Original Filing Date Nunc Pro Tunc of This Matter is DENIED.