Judge Mark E. Windham, Case 18STLC15199 2022-12-14 Tentative Ruling

If you desire to submit on the tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Dept. 26 at the Spring Street Courthouse until the morning of the motion hearing.

The e-mail address is SSCdept26@lacourt.org

The heading on your e-mail should contain the case name, number, hearing date, and that you submit. The message should indicate your name, contact information, and the party you represent. Please note, the above e-mail address is to inform the court of your submission on the tentative ruling. All other inquiries will not receive a response.

If there are no appearances by either side and no submission on the Court's tentative ruling, the matter will be placed OFF CALENDAR.

Due to overcrowding concerns of COVID-19, all parties shall make every effort to schedule a remote appearance via LACourtConnect (https://my.lacourt.org/laccwelcome) for their next hearing. The parties shall register with LACourtConnect at least 2 hours prior to their scheduled hearing time.

Plaintiff Jaime Santos (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendant Manuel Garcia, Jr. (“Defendant”) on December 21, 2018. The matter was set for trial on October 25, 2021, at which time Plaintiff requested a continuance. (Minute Order, 10/25/21.) The Court continued the trial date to January 25, 2022.

On November 15, 2021, Defendant filed a noticed Motion for Non-suit, which was set to be heard on February 28, 2022. When Plaintiff failed to appear at trial on January 25, 2022, the Court dismissed the Complaint without prejudice and the hearing on the Motion for Non-suit was vacated. (Minute Order, 01/25/22.)

On March 16, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Dismissal, re-set Defendant’s Motion for Non-suit to July 13, 2022, and set trial for July 21, 2022. (Minute Order, 03/16/22.) At the hearing on July 13, 2022 for the Motion for Non-suit, the Court continued the hearing on the Motion for Non-suit and trial date to November 2, 2022. (07/13/22.) On November 2, 2022, the trial date and hearing on Motion for Non-Suit were continued to December 14, 2022. (Minute Order, 11/02/22.)

Defendant moves for non-suit on the grounds that Plaintiff’s action is barred by the two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions set forth at Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1. The Complaint was filed on December 21, 2018 and is brought with respect to a motor vehicle accident that occurred on December 3, 2016. (Compl., p. 1 and ¶¶GN-1, MV-1.) Facially, therefore, the action was filed more than two years after the accident on December 3, 2016.

In opposition, Plaintiff presents evidence that their counsel sought to file the Complaint on December 3, 2018. (Motion, Sheldon Decl., ¶¶1-2 and Exh. A.) This was the first day for e-filing and the papers were rejected by the clerk’s office without explanation. (Id. at ¶3.) Plaintiff only received notice of the rejection two weeks later and promptly sought to re-file the papers. (Id. at ¶¶3-4.) In fact, Plaintiff re-filed the exact same documents on December 21, 2018 and they were accepted on that date. (Id. at ¶4.)

Based on this evidence, the Court finds the Complaint was properly filed on December 3, 2018. The court clerk’s function is purely ministerial and they cannot reject a complaint that substantially complies with the rules. As explained in Carlson v. State of California Dept. of Fish and Game (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1268, 1270, “Government Code section 69846.5 provides that ‘[t]he clerk of the superior court shall endorse on each paper filed with the court the day, month, and year it is filed.’ For purposes of the statute of limitations, ‘filing’ means delivery to the clerk during business hours.” (Carlson v. State of California Dept. of Fish and Game (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1268 (citing United Farm Workers of America v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. (1985) 37 Cal.3d 912, 918).)

The Complaint was delivered to the clerk on December 3, 2018, during business hours. The Complaint should have been deemed filed on that date and the failure to do so was a clerical error. Accordingly, the Complaint is deemed filed on December 3, 2018 and the clerk’s office is to correct the filing date.