Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 23AHCV02087, Date: 2024-03-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCV02087    Hearing Date: March 12, 2024    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

 

DANIEL VENTURA,

                   Plaintiff(s),

          vs.

 

MYRON LONGHURST, et al.,

 

                   Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

     CASE NO.:  23AHCV02087

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEMURRER WITHOUT MOTION TO STRIKE; MOTION FOR ORDER DEEMING COMPLAINT FILED ON JUNE 19, 2023

 

Dept. 3

8:30 a.m.

March 12, 2024

 

 

 

 

I.            INTRODUCTION

On September 11, 2023, plaintiff Daniel Ventura (“Plaintiff”) filed this personal injury action against Myron Longhurst, Clark Longhurst, and Kendra Longhurst. Plaintiff alleges he sustained injuries arising from a motor vehicle collision that occurred on June 23, 2021.

On November 9, 2023, Defendants filed a demurrer to the complaint on the grounds that it was time-barred by the two-year statute of limitations period applicable to personal injury claims.

On February 13, 2024, Plaintiff filed this motion for an order deeming the complaint filed as of June 19, 2023.

This order addresses Plaintiff’s motion as well as Defendants’ demurrer.

II.          PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DEEM COMPLAINT FILED ON JUNE 19, 2023

A.   Legal Standard

A court clerk has no discretion to reject a pleading that substantially conforms to the rules. (Rojas v. Cutsforth (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 774, 777-78 [the filing functions of a clerk are merely ministerial].) If the clerk refuses to file the complaint due to an insignificant defect, it is deemed filed, for statute of limitations purposes, on the date it was first presented for filing. (Id. at p. 778.) Where a defect is insubstantial, the clerk should, instead, file the complaint and notify the attorney or party that the perceived defect should be corrected at the earliest opportunity. (Id. at p. 777; see also Carlson v. State of California Department of Fish & Game¿(1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1268, 1270, 1276 [the grounds for rejecting a filing of a complaint must be based in statute or the California Rules of Court, and not on local rules].) A paper is deemed filed when it is deposited with the clerk with directions to file the paper. (Dillon v. Superior Court of Nevada County¿(1914) 24 Cal.App. 760, 765.) “[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, supra, 68 Cal.App.4th at p. 1270.) 

B.   Discussion

Plaintiff explains that on June 19, 2023, counsel, Diana L. Paz (“Ms. Paz” prepared a summons, complaint, civil case cover sheet, and civil case cover sheet addendum for filing. (Paz Decl., Exs. A-C.) The documents were uploaded on June 19, 2023, at 10:45 a.m. but rejected on June 20, 2023, on the grounds that the “[i]nformation does not match on Complaint and Summons.” (Paz Decl., Ex. D.) Ms. Paz did not become aware of this rejection until several weeks later. The main issue with the document submitted was the misspelling of defendants Myron Longhurst and Clark Longhurst’s names as “Myron Longhurts” and “Clark Longhuyrst” on the caption of the Complaint, even though their names were correctly spelled in the body of the complaint.

Code of Civil Procedure section 473(a)(1) specifically allows mistakes in the parties' names to be corrected by amending the complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(l).) Furthermore, whether the names in the Complaint matched the names listed on the summons is not a defect which should have prevented the complaint from being filed because a complaint does not need to be filed with a summons. Accordingly, the complaint submitted by Plaintiff on June 19, 2023, was incorrectly rejected by the clerk because the misspelled names were an insubstantial defect. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED and the Court issues an order nunc pro tunc deeming the Complaint filed on June 19, 2023 at 10:45 a.m. when it was presented to the clerk for electronic filing.

 

III.        DEMURRER

Because the Complaint is deemed filed as of June 19, 2023, Defendants’ demurrer on the grounds that the action is time-barred is OVERRULED.

IV.         CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.

Defendants’ demurrer is OVERRULED.

Dated this 12th day of March, 2024

 

 

 

 

       William A. Crowfoot

Judge of the Superior Court

 

 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.