Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 24STCV06136, Date: 2025-02-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV06136    Hearing Date: February 24, 2025    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                 Plaintiff Prince Eissa 

RESPONDING PARTY:       Unopposed

Motion for Order Nunc Pro Tunc to Set Complaint Filing Date as March 8, 2024

The court considered the moving papers filed in connection with this motion.  No opposition papers were filed.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff Prince Eissa (“Plaintiff”) moves the court for an order modifying, nunc pro tunc, the filing date for the Complaint to be March 8, 2024 on the ground that the clerk improperly failed to file the Complaint on that date.

“If a party that is required to provide a cover sheet under [rule 3.220] 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.  Failure of a party or a party’s counsel to file a cover sheet as required by this rule may subject that party, its counsel, or both, to sanctions under rule 2.30.”  (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.220, subd. (c).)  “The Judicial Council added subdivision (c) to former rule 982.2 (subsequently renumbered as 3.220) effective January 2002 to address the [following problem]: ‘the refusal of some clerks to file an initial pleading because it is not accompanied by a cover sheet or the sheet is somehow defective.’”  (Mito v. Temple Recycling Center Corp. (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 276, 280.)

The court finds that Plaintiff has not presented evidence establishing that the clerk improperly rejected the filing of the Complaint in this action.

Plaintiff’s counsel has stated, in his declaration, that (1) the clerk rejected the filing of the Complaint on March 8, 2024, and (2) the Notice of Rejection stated that the Complaint was rejected because, on the cover page of the Complaint, Plaintiff was required to add the defendant that was added on the summons.  (Eslamboly Decl., ¶ 4.)  However, Plaintiff did not submit a copy of the Notice of Rejection or the Complaint and case management documents that were submitted to the clerk.  Instead, Plaintiff submitted only a copy of an email from Bosco legal informing Plaintiff’s counsel that the court rejected the filing.  (Eslamboly Decl., Ex. B.)  The Notice of Rejection was not attached to that exhibit.[1]  (Ibid.)  Similarly, Plaintiff has not submitted the second, third, and fourth Notices of Rejection issued on March 11, 2024 and March 12, 2024, such that the court cannot verify that the clerk rejected the filings of those Complaints based on incomplete or defective cover sheets.  (Eslamboly Decl., ¶¶ 7, 10-11 and Exs. D, F, G.)  Even if the court had so concluded, however, the court notes that Plaintiff has not requested that the court order that the Complaint was deemed filed on March 11, 2024, and Plaintiff successfully filed his Complaint on March 12, 2024.

Further, it appears that the clerk did not reject Plaintiff’s March 8, 2024 filing of the Complaint based on a defective or incomplete cover sheet, such that the court could amend the date of filing pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.220, subdivision (c).  (Mot., p. 1:3-5 [requesting relief under rule 3.220].)  Instead, Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration appears to suggest that the clerk rejected the filing based on defects with the Complaint itself, not the civil case cover sheet.  Specifically, as set forth above, Plaintiff’s counsel has stated that the clerk rejected the March 8, 2024 filing because the Complaint itself did not list the name of the defendant that was on the summons.  (Eslamboly Decl., ¶ 4 [summarizing reason for rejection based on defect with “cover page of the complaint [sic]” because counsel “must add the defendant that was add [sic] on the summons”].)  Plaintiff has not presented argument and analysis showing that (1) the clerk rejected the filing based on a defective cover sheet required by rule 3.220 (rather than the Complaint itself), (2) the Complaint filed on March 8, 2024 substantially complied with California Rules of Court, rules 2.100-2.119 despite the apparent failure to include the names of all of the defendants, or (3) the defect for which the Complaint was rejected was insubstantial.  (Ibid.; Carlson v. State of California Department of Fish & Game (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1268, 1276 [“state law is clear that a paper is deemed filed when it is presented to the clerk for filing in a form that complies with CRC 201.  If a paper is thus presented, the clerk has a ministerial duty to file it”]; Rojas v. Cutsforth (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 774, 777 [“Where . . . the defect, if any, is insubstantial, the clerk should file the complaint and notify the attorney or party that the perceived defect should be corrected at the earliest opportunity”].)

For the reasons set forth above, the court finds that Plaintiff has not met their burden to show that the Complaint presented on March 8, 2024 should have been filed but was improperly rejected by the clerk.  The court therefore denies Plaintiff’s motion, without prejudice to Plaintiff’s filing a motion seeking this relief that is supported by evidence and argument establishing that the defect was insubstantial or that the papers otherwise complied with the requirements of the California Rules of Court.

ORDER

            The court denies, without prejudice, plaintiff Prince Eissa’s motion for order nunc pro tunc to set complaint filing date as March 8, 2024.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  February 24, 2025

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court