DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
26CVP-0010·slo·Civil·Negligence
Hearing in about 3 hoursGRANTED

Ivana Ford-Neal v. The Oaks Hotel & Suites

Motion to Deem Complaint Filed Nunc Pro Tunc

Hearing date
Aug 25, 2026
Department
Judge
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Causes of action

Parties

PlaintiffIvana Ford-Neal
DefendantThe Oaks Hotel & Suites

Ruling

Ivana Ford-Neal v. The Oaks Hotel & Suites, 26CVP-0010

Hearing: Motion to Deem Complaint Filed Nunc Pro Tunc

Date: August 25, 2026

Ivana Ford-Neal filed this negligence action against The Oaks Hotel & Suites on January 7, 2026. The proof of service on file reports the summons and complaint were personally served on Defendant’s registered agent on July 9, 2026. No responsive pleading has been filed.

Prior to service of the summons and complaint, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Deem Complaint Filed Nunc Pro Tunc as of December 8, 2025. Plaintiff reports she attempted to file the complaint on December 8, 2025, at 11:08 a.m. prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations, but the filing was rejected due to formatting issues. (Drake Decl., ¶¶ 2-14.) Plaintiff seeks an order deeming the complaint filed as of December 8, 2025.

The term “filing ... means what it does in all other contexts: actual delivery of the petition to the clerk at his place of business during office hours. [Citation.] Thus, it is the filer’s actions that are scrutinized in determining whether a petition was timely filed. Rejection of the petition by the clerk [] for a technical defect cannot undo a ‘filing’ that has already occurred.” (United Farm Workers of America v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. (1985) 37 Cal.3d 912, 918 [rejecting argument that petition untimely filed under Labor Code section 1160.8].)

ORDER (PROPOSED)

The motion is granted. The Court deems the complaint filed as of December 8, 2025. The Clerk’s Office is directed to re-file the complaint to reflect the file date of December 8, 2025.

1

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share