Judge: Malcolm Mackey, Case: 23STCV03076, Date: 2023-05-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV03076    Hearing Date: May 2, 2023    Dept: 55

FEDERICO SALMOIRAGHI. v. TOSOLINI, LAMURA, RASILE & TONIUTTI, LLP                                                                  23STCV03076

Hearing Date:  5/2/23,  Dept. 55.

#9:   MOTION TO DEEM COMPLAINT FILED AND CONFORMED TO DATE OF ORIGINAL TRANSMISSION (PER AMENDED GENERAL ORDER 7(a)(ii)).

Notice:  Okay

No Opposition

MP:  Plaintiffs

RP:  

Summary

Plaintiffs filed a Complaint stamped filed on 2/14/23, alleging that plaintiffs retained the attorney defendants to initiate an underlying defamation lawsuit, but the District Court issued an order dismissing the case based on the law firm’s failure to prosecute or amend the complaint, after a SLAPP motion was made, and followed by a motion for attorneys’ fees, and defendants concealed, misrepresented, abandoned the clients, and failed to pursue remedies.

The causes of action are:

1. LEGAL MALPRACTICE (PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE)

2. BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY

3. BREACH OF CONTRACT

4. INTENTIONAL CONCEALMENT/MISREPRESENTATION OF FACT.

MP Positions

Moving parties request an order to deem complaint filed and conformed to the date of original transmission on 2/3/23, on grounds including the following:

·         The File Clerk issued a Rejection of the Complaint, not due to the Complaint, itself, but due to the Computer-Side not showing all the party names checked/clicked on the platform.

·         OneLegal – the filer – opened an investigation ticket in response – and confirmed the transmission error since the Party’s names had been saved into their system at time of filing. Plaintiffs nonetheless were required to re-submit the Complaint.

·         California Rules of Court, Rule 8.77(d), provides that: “If a filer fails to meet a filing deadline imposed by court order, rule, or statute because of a failure at any point in the electronic transmission and receipt of a document, the filer may file the document on paper or electronically as soon thereafter as practicable and accompany the filing with a motion to accept the document as timely filed. For good cause shown, the court may enter an order permitting the document to be filed nunc pro tune to the date the filer originally sought to transmit the document electronically.

·         “[I]f a digital document is not filed in due course because of…a processing failure...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.”   LASC First Amended General Order at Paragraph 7(a)(ii).

Tentative Ruling

The motion is granted.

The Complaint is deemed filed on 2/3/23, notwithstanding the filing date of 2/14/23 that shall remain on the official Court filing.

The Court finds that a computer glitch caused the failure to show all party names, which led to the Clerk issuing a rejection of the Complaint.

Generally, documents are deemed filed when the court clerk receives them for filing, during open hours, at the clerk's place of business (with exceptions, including when clerks have no authority for rejecting documents).  E.g., Duran v. St. Luke's Hospital (2003) 114 Cal. App. 4th 457, 461-62;  Carlson v. Dep't of Fish & Game (1998) 68 Cal. App. 4th 1268, 1276.  “If a document is presented to the clerk's office for filing in a form that complies with the rules of court, the clerk's office has a ministerial duty to file it....  Even if the document contains defects, the clerk's office should file it and notify the party that the defect should be corrected.…”  Voit v. Sup. Ct.  (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1285, 1287.

*IF MOVING PARTY SUBMITS ON THE COURT’S TENTATIVE RULING, PLEASE CALL THE COURTROOM AT 213-633-0655*