Judge: Stephanie M. Bowick, Case: 24STCV15256, Date: 2024-11-12 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24STCV15256 Hearing Date: November 12, 2024 Dept: 19
After consideration of the briefing filed and oral
argument at the hearing, Plaintiff Rodney Emanuel Lee Walker II’s Motion
to Amend Filing Date of Complaint is GRANTED.
The Court orders that the filing
date of the Complaint be amended to indicate that it was filed on June 17, 2024
at 11:34pm.
The Court signs the proposed
order filed on July 17, 2024 after adding the following language: “that the
filing date of the Complaint be amended to indicate that it was filed on June
17, 2024 at 11:34pm.”
No notice to be given under the
circumstances.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a negligence action.
Plaintiff Rodney Emanuel Lee Walker II (“Plaintiff”) brings suit against Defendants
David P. Mansanalez and Justin D. Bennett (collectively, “Defendants”) alleging
the following cause of action:
1.
Negligence.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants
negligently caused an automobile accident causing Plaintiff to sustain personal
injuries.
Plaintiff filed the instant Motion
to Amend Filing Date of Complaint (the “Motion”).
GROUNDS FOR MOTION
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473,
subdivision (d) and the Los Angeles Superior Court’s “¿First Amended General Order Re
Mandatory Electronic Filing For Civil," dated May 3, 2019, Plaintiff moves
for an order amending the filing date of the Complaint from June 18, 2024 to
June 17, 2024 on the ground that the Court Clerk improperly and without good
cause rejected the electronic filing of the Complaint.
DISCUSSION
I.
Legal Standards
Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (d)
provides 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.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 473(d).)
“A court of general jurisdiction has this inherent power
to correct clerical error in its records, whether made by the court, clerk or
counsel, at anytime so as to conform its records to the truth.” (Aspen
Internat. Capital Corp. v. Marsch (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1199, 1204 (citing Hennefer
v. Butcher (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 492, 506; 7 Witkin, Cal. Procedure
(3d ed. 1985) Judgment, § 68, pp. 502-503); see Bowden v. Green (1982)
128 Cal.App.3d 65, 71 (citing In re Candelario (1970) 3 Cal.3d 702, 705)
[“That a court of general jurisdiction has the power to correct clerical error
in its judgment so that the judgment will conform to and speak the truth,
regardless of the lapse of time and whether made by the clerk, counsel or the
court itself, is a principle so established as to be beyond argument.”]; In
re Candelario, supra, 3 Cal.3d at 705 (citing People v. Schultz
(1965) 238 Cal.App.2d 804, 807; People v. Flores (1960) 177 Cal.App.2d
610, 613) [“It is not open to question that a court has the inherent power to
correct clerical errors in its records so as to make these records reflect the
true facts.”].)
“The court may correct such errors on its own motion or
upon the application of the parties. (In re Candelario, supra, 3
Cal.3d at 705 (citing People v. Flores, supra, 177 Cal.App.2d at
613).)
As explained by the Court of Appeal in Aspen Internat.
Capital Corp.:
The difference between judicial and
clerical error rests not upon the party committing the error, but rather on
whether “it was the deliberate result of judicial reasoning and determination.”
A correctable clerical error includes one made by the court which cannot
reasonably be attributed to the exercise of judicial consideration or
discretion. “Clerical error ... is to be distinguished from judicial error
which cannot be corrected by amendment. The distinction between clerical error
and judicial error is 'whether the error was made in rendering the judgment, or
in recording the judgment rendered.' ” In summary, “ 'The general rule with
respect to the power of the court to modify a judgment does not preclude the
court from correcting clerical errors and misprisions either in the entry of
the judgment or due to inadvertence of the court. The term ” clerical error“
covers all errors, mistakes, or omissions which are not the result of the
exercise of the judicial function. If an error, mistake, or omission is the
result of inadvertence, but for which a different judgment would have been
rendered, the error is clerical and the judgment may be corrected to correspond
with what it would have been but for the inadvertence. The court has inherent
power to correct such errors.' ”
(Aspen Internat. Capital Corp., supra, 235
Cal.App.3d at 1204 (internal citations omitted).)
“‘The test is simply whether the challenged judgment was
made or entered inadvertently (clerical error) or advertently (judicial error).’”
(Bowden, supra, 128 Cal.App.3d at 71 (quoting 4 Witkin, Cal.
Procedure (2d ed. 1971) Judgments, § 65, p. 3226).)
II.
Analysis
Plaintiff argues that the filing date of the Complaint
must be amended to indicate that it was filed on June 17, 2024 rather than June
18, 2024 because the Complaint was electronically received by the Court Clerk
on June 17, 2024, but was improperly and without good cause rejected by the
Court Clerk, reasoning that “¿[e]ach document submitted for filing
conformed with all applicable state and local rules, except” that the Civil
Case Cover Sheet “inadvertently and erroneously” checked the box in Section 2 indicating
that the case is complex under California Rules of Court, rule 3.400. (Motion,
pp. 2, 4-5.)
For the following reasons, the Court agrees with
Plaintiff’s arguments and concludes that the Court Clerk was required to file
the Complaint on June 17, 2024, the date it was electronically received, rather
than June 18, 2024, and therefore the effective filing date of the Complaint is
June 17, 2024.
Plaintiff provides evidence that the Summons and
Complaint and Civil Case Cover Sheet were electronically “received” by the
Court Clerk on June 17, 2024, which was a court day, at 11:34 pm, but that, as
stated in the Court Clerk’s “Notice of Court Rejection of Electronic Filing,”
the Court Clerk rejected the filings because:
On the civil case cover sheet, you
indicated this is a complex filing. Please choose the Complex/Class Action
check box under the “Case Information” section when eFiling to route to correct
place to be processed.
(Wayne Gary Samuel Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. C.)
Except for the issue concerning the erroneous checking of
the box in Section 2 of the case cover sheet indicating that the case is
complex under California Rules of Court, rule 3.400, the Court Clerk provided
no other reason for rejecting the filings.
Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6, subdivision
(e)(3) provides, in relevant part, that, “[a]ny document received
electronically by the court between 12:00 a.m. and 11:59:59 p.m. on a court day
shall be deemed filed on that court day.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6(e)(3);
accord, Los Angeles Superior Court First Amended General Order (May 3, 2019), §
(7)(a)(i); see Cal. R. Ct., 2.253(b)(6) [“The effective date of filing any
document received electronically is prescribed by Code of Civil Procedure
section 1010.6. This provision concerns only the effective date of filing. Any
document that is received electronically must be processed and satisfy all
other legal filing requirements to be filed as an official court record.”].)
California Rules of Court, rule 3.220 requires that, “in each
civil action or proceeding, except those filed in small claims court or filed
under the Probate Code, Family Code, or Welfare and Institutions Code,” “[t]he
first paper filed in an action or proceeding must be accompanied” by a case
cover sheet using Civil Case Cover Sheet (form CM-010). (Cal. R. Ct.,
3.220(a)-(b).)
However, California Rules of Court, rule 3.220,
subdivision (c) provides that:
If a party that 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.
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. R. Ct., 3.220(c).)
Accordingly, given that the Court Clerk rejected the
electronic filing of the Complaint on the sole basis of a defect with the case
cover sheet, the Court finds that the Clerk improperly failed to file the
Complaint on June 17, 2024, the date it was electronically received by the
Court Clerk. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6(e)(3); see Mito v. Temple Recycling
Center Corp. (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 276 (citing Carlson v. Department of
Fish & Game (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1268, 1270) [holding clerk was
required, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.220, subdivision (c),
to file the complaint as first presented on July 24 where the clerk stamped the
complaint as received on July 24 and there was nothing to suggest that the
plaintiffs did not meet all the state requirements]; Rojas v. Cutsforth
(1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 774, 777 [“The clerk has no discretion to reject a
complaint that substantially conforms to the local rules.”].)
Thus, for all the foregoing reasons, the Motion is
GRANTED. The Court orders that the Complaint be deemed filed on June 17, 2024
at 11:34 pm, the date and time it was electronically received by the Court
Clerk. (See Los Angeles Superior Court First Amended General Order (May 3,
2019), § (7)(a)(ii)(3) [“Notwithstanding any other provision of this order, if
a digital document is not filed in due course because of: … a processing
failure that occurs after receipt, 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.”].)