Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 24STCV09652, Date: 2025-02-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV09652    Hearing Date: February 4, 2025    Dept: 45

GURGEN MOVESTAN v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY ET AL.

Motion for Order Application for Order Nunc Pro Tunc

Date of Hearing:          February 4, 2025                     Trial Date: None Set.  

Department:               45                                            Case No.: 24STCV09652

Moving Party:             Plaintiff Gurgen Moyesyan

Responding Party:       None

BACKGROUND

This case arises from an incident that occurred on April 16, 2022, when Plaintiff, Gurgen Movsesyan (“Plaintiff”) was injured on Defendant’s premises, the Vermont and Beverly Blvd. underground transit station located at or near 301 North Vermont Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90004. Plaintiff was using an elevator, when suddenly and unexpectedly, the elevator dropped, causing Plaintiff to fall to the ground.

On April 16, 2024, Plaintiff filed the complaint.

On April 17, 2024, the clerk rejected the complaint.

On April 17, 2024, Plaintiff refiled the complaint.

On November 27, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion.

As of January 30, 2025, no opposition has been filed.

[Tentative] Ruling

Plaintiff’s motion to correct the filing date of the Complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Complaint is deemed filed on April 16, 2024. 

LEGAL STANDARD

“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., section 473(d).)  

“It is well settled that a court has the inherent power to correct a clerical error in its judgment so that the judgment will reflect the true facts. The power of a court to correct clerical mistakes in judgments is also a statutory power pursuant to section 473.” (Estate of Douglas (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 690, 695.)  

“A clerical error in the judgment includes inadvertent errors 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. Any attempt by a court, under the guise of correcting clerical error, to revise its deliberately exercised judicial discretion is not permitted. A judicial error is the deliberate result of judicial reasoning and determination 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.” (Estate of Douglas, supra, 83 Cal.App.5th at 695.) 

ANALYSIS

Merits

Plaintiff contends that April 16, 2024, should be deemed the true filing date for the complaint because it is the date on which they first presented the complaint to the Court. Plaintiff also contends that the clerk’s rejection of the filing was based on a technical defect under a Local rule, and such rejections are impermissible under cases such as Carlson v. Dep’t of Fish & Game (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1268, which held that a clerk may not refuse to file a complaint for lack of compliance with a local court rule where the complaint complies with state rules. 

Here, Plaintiff’s injury occurred on April 16, 2022.  Plaintiff was required to file his complaint  on or before April 16, 2024. On April 16, 2024, Plaintiff submitted his Summons and Complaint package for filing with the clerk of the Los Angeles Superior Court. (Clift Decl. ¶ 7; Ex. A.) Per the Clerk’s Notice of Rejection sent on April 17, 2024, the reason for the rejection was “Et al is used in the caption of the complaint. There’s an additional party in the body of the complaint. Use an attachment to list additional parties.” (Clift Decl. ¶ 10; Ex. B.) Notably, no opposition has been filed.

Thus, the Complaint was, in legal effect, filed on April 16, 2024, when Plaintiff deposited the Complaint with the Clerk.  

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motion to correct the filing date of the Complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Complaint is deemed filed on April 16, 2024.