Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 24SMCV00978, Date: 2024-11-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV00978    Hearing Date: November 14, 2024    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           Kling Inc., et al., v. Taylor

CASE NO.:                24SMCV00978

MOTION:                  Motion for Order Nunc Pro Tunc

HEARING DATE:   11/14/2024

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 473(d) states that the court may “upon motion of the injured party, or its own motion, correct clerical mistakes in its judgment or orders as entered, so as to conform to the judgment or order directed, and may, on motion of either party after notice to the other party, set aside any void judgment or order.”

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff Wayne Lewis moves for an order nunc pro tunc to correct the Clerk of the Court’s error during the filing of Plaintiff’s Complaint, Summons and Civil Case Cover Sheet. Plaintiff requests that the court correct the incorrect filing date of March 4, 2024, to reflect the date of February 16, 2024.

Plaintiff explains that on February 16, 2024, he timely electronically transmitted the complaint. (Jackman Decl., Ex. 3.) Plaintiffs’ counsel experienced extreme difficulty while attempting to load the documents including the complaint, summons, and the civil cover sheet with an addendum as additional documents. The system refused to upload the two supporting documents, and as such, the complaint was uploaded by itself. The Clerk rejected the filing on February 20, 2024, indicating that additional documents were needed to complete the filing. Ten minutes later, Plaintiff’s counsel successfully filed the entire series of required documents. (Ex. 4.) The documents were rejected by the clerk’s office because the names in the Case Information didn’t match the names in the complaint. On February 22, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel corrected the errors and refiled the entire series of documents required. (Ex. 5). Again, the documents were rejected by the clerk’s office because more than one box had been checked as for the type of action on the civil case addendum sheet. (Ex. 6.) On February 23, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel corrected the errors and refiled the entire series of documents. (Ex. 7.) On February 27, 2024, the documents were rejected by the clerk’s office because more than one box had been checked as for the type of action on the civil case addendum sheet. (Ex. 8.) On March 2, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel again attempted to correct the errors and refiled the entire series of documents. (Ex. 9.) The documents were finally accepted by the clerk’s office on March 4, 2024. (Ex. 10.) Plaintiff notes that the clerk’s refusal to accept the filings delayed the filings by twelve days, unfortunately causing the statute of limitations to expire prior to acceptance.

The Court concurs that for statute of limitations purposes, the filing of this action occurred on February 22, 2024, and that Plaintiff is entitled to nunc pro tunc order stating as such. Where the clerk rejects a filing for immaterial variance with court rules, it would be error to deny a nunc pro tunc order to reflect the true filing date and deprive a litigant of an otherwise timely claim. (Rojas v. Cutsforth (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 774, 777–778; Carlson v. State of California Department of Fish & Game (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1268; Mito v. Temple Recycling Center Corp. (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 276.) Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.