Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 23STCP03248, Date: 2023-10-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCP03248    Hearing Date: October 19, 2023    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On September 6, 2023, Petitioner Law Offices of Jacob Emrani filed a Petition for Rejection of Award and Request For Trial After Attorney-Client Fee Arbitration.  (Suarez Decl. ¶ 5.)  “[D]ue to an unfortunate error, the LASC CIV 109 was not uploaded.”  (Suarez Decl. ¶ 5.)

The next day, Petitioner’s counsel received a rejection of the Petition.  (Suarez Decl. ¶ 6.)  The rejection stated, “Unable to file the Complaint without the required mandatory form ‘Civil Case Coversheet Addendum and Statement of Location.’”  (Suarez Decl., Ex. D.)  Upon receipt, Petitioner immediately refiled the Petition, initiating this action on September 7, 2023.  (Suarez Decl. ¶ 6.)

On September 14, 2023, Petitioner’s counsel realized that, based on the date of the proof of service of the underlying arbitration award, the Petition had to be filed by September 6, 2023.  (Suarez Decl. ¶ 6.)

On September 15, 2023, Petitioner filed an application for order nunc pro tunc deeming the filing date of the Petition to conform to the original e-filing date.

“[T]he local superior court may not condition the filing of a complaint on local rule requirements.  Instead, so long as a complaint complies with state requirements, the clerk has a ministerial duty to file.  In legal effect, a complaint is ‘filed’ when it is presented to the clerk for filing in the form required by state law.”  (Carlson v. State of California Department of Fish & Game (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1268, 1270.)  “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.”  (California Rules of Court, rule 3.220(c).)  “The Judicial Council added subdivision (c) to former rule 982.2 (subsequently renumbered as 3.220) effective January 2002 to address the very problem that occurred in this case: ‘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 September 6, 2023 e-filing was improperly rejected for lack of cover sheet.  Accordingly, the application for order nunc pro tunc is GRANTED.  The Petition is deemed filed on September 6, 2023.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit.  If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

         Dated this 19th day of October 2023