Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

VICTORIA FRANKLIN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

THE NIA FOUNDATION, INCORPORATED, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 24STCV27034

DEPARTMENT 45

[TENTATIVE] RULING

Complaint Filed: 10/16/24

Trial Date: N/A

Hearing date: November 21, 2024

Moving Party: Plaintiff Victoria Franklin

Responding Party: Unopposed

Motion for Order Nunc Pro Tunc and Application for Relief from Electronic Filing System Error

The Court has considered the moving papers. No opposition was filed.

The motion is GRANTED.

Background

This is an action arising from alleged injuries that Plaintiff Victoria Franklin (“Plaintiff”) sustained while providing teaching services at the ICEF Viewpark Preparatory High School campus, which is located at 5701 South Crenshaw Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90043 (the “Premises”). The Complaint arises from an incident which allegedly occurred on or about October 14, 2022.

On October 16, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendants The Nia Foundation Incorporated, Inner City Education Foundation, ICEF Viewpark Preparatory High School, Los Angeles Unified School District, and DOES 1-50, inclusive (collectively, “Defendants”) alleging causes of action for: (1) failure to carry workers’ compensation insurance/negligence per se; (2) negligence; (3) negligent hiring, supervision, training, and retention; (4) premises liability; and (5) concealment of lack (sic) workers’ compensation insurance.

Also, on October 16, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Civil Case Cover Sheet Addendum and Statement of Location, which is dated October 10, 2024. Plaintiff’s counsel attests therein that this action was properly filed in the West District and indicates that the address of 5701 South Crenshaw Blvd. is the basis for the filing location.

On October 29, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Order Nunc Pro Tunc and Application for Relief from Electronic Filing System Error. Plaintiff seeks “an [o]rder to date the [c]omplaint, summons, and related pleadings for October 10, 2024, when they were originally filed.” (Not. of Mot. at p. 2:4-6.) The motion was not filed with a proof of service.

As of November 18, 2024, no proof of service has been filed showing service of the summons and complaint on any defendant. The Court informs Plaintiff that “[t]he summons and complaint shall be served upon a defendant within three years after the action is commenced against the defendant . . . [and] an action is commenced at the time the complaint is filed.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 583.210, subd. (a).) As to the filing of a proof of service concerning the summons and complaint “[p]roof of service of summons shall be filed within 60 days after the time the summons and complaint must be served upon a defendant.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 583.210, subd. (b).)

Legal Standard

Where the filing of a summons and complaint has an insubstantial defect, “the clerk should file the complaint and notify the attorney or party that the perceived defect should be corrected at the earliest opportunity.” (Rojas v. Cutsforth (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 774, 777 (Rojas).) “The functions of the clerk are purely ministerial.” (Ibid.) “The clerk has no discretion to reject a complaint that substantially conforms to the local rules.” (Ibid.) “[A] paper is deemed filed when it is deposited with the clerk with directions to file the paper.” (Id. at p. 778.) There is a preference for dispositions of actions on the merits. (Carlson v. State of California Department of Fish & Game (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1268, 1281 (Carlson).) “[E]rrors in compliance with local rules [should] not prejudice the client.” (Ibid.) A clerk no express or implied “power to enforce local rules by rejecting otherwise conforming papers.” (Ibid.) A paper is “filed when presented to the clerk for filing.” (Ibid.) “For purposes of the statute of limitations, filing means delivery to the clerk during business hours.” (Id. at p. 1273.) “[S]o long as a complaint complies with state requirements, the clerk has a ministerial duty to file.” (Id. at p. 1270.)

California Rules of Court, Rule 3.220(c) provides that “[i]f a party is required to provide a cover sheet under this rule or a similar local rule fails to do so or provides a defective or incomplete cover sheet at the time the party’s first paper is submitted for filing, the clerk of the court must file the paper.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.220(c).)

Los Angeles Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 2.3(a)(1)(E) provides that “[i]n addition to the Civil Case Cover Sheet required by the California Rules of Court, a civil action or proceeding presented for filing in any district, other than electronically filed family law cases initiated by the district attorney, must be accompanied by the Civil Case Cover Sheet Addendum and Statement of Location (form LACIV 109), signed by counsel for plaintiff or the self-represented plaintiff. A copy of the completed form must be served with the summons and complaint or petition.” (Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Court Rules, Rule 2.3(a)(1)(E).)

Every unlimited civil tort action for bodily injury, wrongful death, or damage to personal property must be filed in the judicial district where the incident arose. (Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Court Rules, Rule 2.3(a)(1)(A).) The filing court location on the Los Angeles Superior Court website should be used to ascertain the appropriate filing location. (Ibid.)

Discussion

Evidence in Support of the Motion

Plaintiff’s counsel, Justin R. Rogal (“Rogal”), provides a declaration in support of the motion. Mr. Rogal states the following: On Thursday, October 10, 2024, he personally prepared and e-filed the Complaint, Summons, and Civil Case Cover Sheet (with the Los Angeles Superior Court Addendum) (collectively, the “Complaint Packet”) with One Legal, which is an authorized e-filing service provider. (Rogal Decl. ¶ 4; Exs. 1, 2.) One Legal’s case initiation menu only presented filing options for the Santa Monica Courthouse and Stanley Mosk Courthouse when counsel input the ZIP Code 90043. (Rogal Decl. ¶ 5; Ex. 3.) No other locations were provided for such ZIP Code. (Rogal Decl. ¶ 5; Ex. 3.) Counsel used the Court’s “Locate Your Filing Courthouse” function on the Court’s website. (Rogal Decl. ¶ 6.) Such function indicated that either the Santa Monica Courthouse or Beverly Hills Courthouse was the correct location to file the Complaint. (Rogal Decl. ¶ 6.) Counsel therefore selected the Santa Monica Courthouse believing it was the more correct filing location given that: (1) the incident occurred closer to Santa Monica; and (2) Stanley Mosk was not an option for “View Park” as appearing on the Los Angeles Superior Court website. (Rogal Decl. ¶ 6.) The Complaint Packet was timely submitted on October 10, 2024, within the hours for submission by e-filing. (Rogal Decl. ¶ 7; Ex. 1.)

On October 15, 2024, counsel’s office was notified that the Complaint Packet was rejected. (Rogal Decl. ¶ 8; Ex. 4.) When the rejection notice was obtained, it said that the Complaint Packet had been rejected due to “Incorrect Court District/Court Location” and advised Plaintiff to file the documents at Stanley Mosk Courthouse. (Rogal Decl. ¶ 9; Ex. 5.) Counsel states that the rejection was irregular. (Rogal Decl. ¶ 10.) On October 16, 2024, the very next day, Plaintiff’s counsel re-filed the Complaint Packet and corrected the address of the Court on the Summons and Civil Case Cover Sheet to Stanley Mosk per the Court clerk’s instruction on the rejection notice. (Rogal Decl. ¶ 11; Ex. 7.) The complaint filed on October 10, 2024 and the re-filed complaint filed on October 16, 2024 are identical. (Rogal Decl. ¶ 12.)

Matthew Mann (“Mann”) also declares that when he called the civil clerk in Santa Monica Courthouse and explained the problem concerning the rejection, he was told that the filing date could not be changed without a court order, and that the Complaint Packet should have been filed with Stanley Mosk Courthouse. (Mann Decl. ¶ 6.) Mr. Mann states that on October 16, 2024, he promptly filed the matter in Stanley Mosk and it was accepted on October 16, 2024. (Mann Decl. ¶ 7.)

The Complaint Should be Deemed Filed on October 10, 2024

The Court finds that the Complaint should be deemed filed on October 10, 2024. Based on the declarations of counsel, there was an error concerning the proper court location for the filing courthouse. Such error, however, did not warrant a rejection of the complaint on October 10, 2024. The clerk should have filed the complaint pursuant to Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.220(c). The complaint was presented to the clerk for filing on October 10, 2024, and therefore it should be deemed filed as of such date. (Rojas, supra, 67 Cal.App.4th 774, 778.) Plaintiff should not be prejudiced for such an insubstantial defect under Carlson, supra, 68 Cal.App.4th 1268, 1281.

Pursuant to Rojas, supra, 67 Cal.App.4th 774, 778, the Court issues an order nunc pro tunc and deems the complaint filed on October 10, 2024, which is the date it was presented to the clerk for filing.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Nunc Pro Tunc and Application for Relief from Electronic Filing System Error is GRANTED.

It is so ordered.

Dated: November 21, 2024

_______________________

MEL RED RECANA

Judge of the Superior Court