CLEVELAND vs DREYER BABICH BUCCOLA WOOD CAMPORA, LLP, et al.

25CV031575: CLEVELAND vs DREYER BABICH BUCCOLA WOOD CAMPORA, LLP, et al. 08/24/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Order Deeming Complaint Filed Nunc Pro Tunc in Department 8C

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard at 1:30 p.m. in Department 8C in the Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse at 500 G Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Richard C. Miadich presiding.

Any party who wishes to contest the tentative ruling below must:

(1) request a hearing by calling the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-8380, by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the noticed hearing date, and leave a voicemail message (a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; (b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and (c) confirming that they have notified the opposing party of their intention to appear; and

(2) advise the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.

If a hearing is not requested by 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the noticed hearing date, the tentative ruling will become the final order of the Court.

If a hearing is requested, the Court prefers in-person attendance by the parties. However, parties may appear by Zoom unless the Court specifically orders in-person attendance. Parties choosing to appear by Zoom are reminded, however, that a Zoom appearance is still a formal appearance before the Court. Parties appearing via Zoom should do so from a quiet location, free from undue distractions, and wear attire suitable for an in-person court appearance.

The parties may join the Zoom session for hearing on the tentative ruling by audio and/or video through the following link:

https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16039062174

25CV031575: CLEVELAND vs DREYER BABICH BUCCOLA WOOD CAMPORA, LLP, et al. 08/24/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Order Deeming Complaint Filed Nunc Pro Tunc in Department 8C

SIP Address:

16039062174@sip.zoomgov.com

(833) 568-8864

ID: 16039062174

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court-Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.Pdf

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING

***NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 28 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8C OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV031575: CLEVELAND vs DREYER BABICH BUCCOLA WOOD CAMPORA, LLP, et al. 08/24/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Order Deeming Complaint Filed Nunc Pro Tunc in Department 8C

THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION***

Plaintiff Angel Cleveland’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for an order deeming the complaint filed nunc pro tunc as of December 19, 2025 is ruled upon as follows.

Facts

Plaintiff submitted a “File a New Case” envelope on 12/19/2025, which the Court recorded as received at 4:02 p.m., Envelope/Transaction No. 255C00354457. (Cleveland Declaration, ¶ 2- Exhibits A-B.)

The Court generated a rejection notice on 12/22/2025, with a stated reason requiring separate PDFs and noting a document type mismatch. (Cleveland Decl., ¶¶ 3-4; Exhibit A.)

Plaintiff did not have actual knowledge of the rejection until 12/30/2025 at approximately 8:30 a.m. and then spent several hours working to correct EFSP submission constraints, including obtaining EFSP representative assistance. (Cleveland Declaration, ¶¶ 6-9.)

Plaintiff submitted corrected envelope 25SC00358889 on 12/30/2025, and the Court accepted it on 12/31/2025, opening Case No. 25CV031575. (Cleveland Declaration, ¶ 9; Exhibit C.)

Discussion

Plaintiff argues that the Court has inherent authority to enter corrective nunc pro tunc orders to avoid injustice and to ensure the record accurately reflects what should have occurred procedurally and that equity supports relief.

Plaintiff fails to cite legal authority to support her position, however, it is true, as Defendant acknowledges, that the Court has the “inherent power to enter a

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV031575: CLEVELAND vs DREYER BABICH BUCCOLA WOOD CAMPORA, LLP, et al. 08/24/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Order Deeming Complaint Filed Nunc Pro Tunc in Department 8C

judgment nunc pro tunc so as to relate back to the time when they should have been entered, but will do so only to avoid injustice.” (Phillips v. Phillips (1953) 41 Cal. 2d 869, 875.)

Defendant argues that Rule 2.259(c) bars the requested retroactive filing date for an initial pleading.

For electronic filings, under Rule 2.259(b), a document that does not comply with filing requirements is rejected, and the court provides notice identifying the reasons for rejection.

Defendant urges that the limited exception allowing a document to be deemed filed as of an earlier date applies only when a technical problem with the court’s electronic filing system prevents acceptance of the filing. Even then, Rule 2.259(c) provides that the exception does not apply to “the filing of a complaint or any other initial pleading in an action or proceeding.” Defendant extrapolates, “Plaintiff therefore cannot obtain the relief she seeks under Rule 2.259 or any other identified authority. She has cited no authority permitting a properly rejected initial pleading to be deemed filed nunc pro tunc, and none exists.” (Opposition, 6:14-16.)

The Court disagrees with this analysis, as nothing in Rule 2.259(c) bars the Court’s inherent power to provide equitable relief.

Under the circumstances present here, the Court finds nunc pro tunc is necessary to prevent injustice.

The Court finds that this case is similar to Rojas v. Cutsforth (1998) 67 Cal. App. 4th 774. In Rojas, the court clerk rejected a complaint for filing prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations because of local rule requirements that were not met, the form submitted had not been signed, and the summons did not reflect the division of the court to which the case was to be assigned. The Court held that 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.)

While Defendant questions Plaintiff’s diligence in discovering that the filing had been

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV031575: CLEVELAND vs DREYER BABICH BUCCOLA WOOD CAMPORA, LLP, et al. 08/24/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Order Deeming Complaint Filed Nunc Pro Tunc in Department 8C

rejected, the Court finds that the defect was insubstantial, that Plaintiff's counsel corrected the defect promptly after being notified of the problem, and that Defendant would not be unduly prejudiced by nunc pro tunc relief. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.

Disposition

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.

The Clerk is instructed to file Plaintiff's original complaint, nunc pro tunc, as of December 19, 2025, the date the original document was submitted.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.