Judge Stephen Morgan, Case 22AVCV00545 2022-09-15 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Stephen Morgan, Case: 22AVCV00545, Date: 2022-09-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22AVCV00545 Hearing Date: September 15, 2022 Dept: A14

Background

This is a premises liability action. Plaintiff Maria Gomez De Mena alleges that on July 26, 2020 she was a patron at Defendant Walmart Inc.’s (“Walmart” or “Defendant”) store located at 37140 47th St. East, Palmdale, CA 93552 (the “Premises”) when a Walmart employee, who was organizing shelf space, caused metal water flasks and similar items to fall from the shelves, striking Plaintiff’s body.

On August 01, 2022, Plaintiff’s Complaint was filed. The Complaint alleges two (2) causes of action for General Negligence and Premises Liability.

No Answer has been filed.

On August 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed this Motion for Order for Filing the Complaint for Damages Nunc Pro Tunc (the “Motion”).

On August 25, 2022, Plaintiff filed a notice stating that the Motion was rescheduled to September 15, 2022.

No Opposition has been filed. “All papers opposing a motion so noticed shall be filed with the court and a copy served on each party at least nine court days. . .before the hearing.” (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b).) The hearing is scheduled for September 15, 2022. As such, an Opposition was due on September 01, 2022. Should an Opposition be filed, it is now untimely.

-----

Discussion

Application – Plaintiff moves for a court order deeming the Complaint filed on July 25, 2022. Plaintiff argues that the Complaint was originally submitted electronically for filing on July 25, 2022 and that the clerk should have accepted it for filing on that date under Rojas v. Cutsforth (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 774, 778, which holds “a paper is deemed filed when it is deposited with the clerk with directions to file the paper[]” ([internal citations omitted]) and/or under Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 8.817(b)(1) which states “[a] document is deemed filed on the date the clerk receives it.” Instead, the clerk rejected the filing because an incorrect selection was made on the e-filing dropdown menu under “Case Category.” That is, the Complaint was filed under “Other Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death” was consistent with Plaintiff’s Civil Case Cover Sheet rather than “Premises Liability” which is consistent with the Civil Case Cover Sheet Addendum. (Decl. Harout Messrelian ¶¶ 3-4.) Plaintiff argues that Cal. Rules of Court triumph over local rules under Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 2.100 and cites further support in case law – Carlson v. Dep't of Fish & Game (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1268. Plaintiff also presents that her counsel was notified of the rejection seven (7) days after the filing while the Statute of Limitations ran on July 26, 2022.

Plaintiff has an additional argument regarding tolling of the Statute of Limitations due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the Emergency Rules provided by the California Judicial Council. The Court does not address this argument as the gravamen of the issue at hand is whether the Complaint should have been filed on July 25, 2022.

“The functions of the clerk are purely ministerial.” (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.” (Id.) “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.” (Id. at 777.)

The Court looks at the filed documents that were rejected: Complaint, Civil Case Cover Sheet, Civil Case Coversheet Addendum, and Summons on the Complaint. (Exh. B.) The Complaint is identical to the one accepted by the Court on August 01, 2022. The notice of the rejection states that the electronic filing was rejected because “[i]ncorrect case category and/or case type selected.” (Exh. A.) The notice was generated on August 01, 2022 at 8:11 am. (Id.) The Court finds this defect insubstantial, especially in light of the fact that there seems to be no issue with the Complaint itself. The Court thus finds it proper to deem the Complaint in this action filed as of the date it was first submitted to the clerk—i.e., July 25, 2022. (See Rojas, supra, 67 Cal.App.4th at 778 (“[A] paper is deemed filed when it is deposited with the clerk with directions to file the paper.”).)

Accordingly, the Motion is GRANTED.

-----

Conclusion

Plaintiff Maria Gomez De Mena’s Motion for Order for Filing the Complaint for Damages Nunc Pro Tunc is GRANTED.