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

25CV031575: CLEVELAND vs DREYER BABICH BUCCOLA WOOD CAMPORA, LLP, et al. 09/09/2026 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. 09/09/2026 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. 09/09/2026 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 filed attempted to file her initial pleadings package on December 19, 2025 by electronically submitting a “File a New Case” envelope, 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 “Notice of Court Rejection of Electronic Filing” on December 22, 2025, which stated that Plaintiff’s attempted electronic filing was rejected because “Resubmit each document as a separate PDF in the same envelope; Document submitted as Complaint does not match Document Type.” (Cleveland Decl., ¶¶ 3-4; Exhibit A.)

Plaintiff asserts she did not have actual knowledge of the rejection until December 30, 2025 at approximately 8:30 a.m. Plaintiff further asserts that it “was not clear how to correctly code and sequence an initiating complaint submitted with a fee waiver” based on the electronic filing instructions available to her, and that she spent several hours attempting to resubmit her filing. (Cleveland Declaration, ¶¶ 6-9.)

Plaintiff eventually submitted a corrected version of her initial pleadings packet on December 30, 2025, which the Court accepted for filing on December 31, 2025, thereby opening Case No. 25CV031575. (Cleveland Declaration, ¶ 9; Exhibit C.)

Discussion

Plaintiff, in her moving papers, argued that the Court has inherent authority to enter corrective nunc pro tunc orders to avoid injustice and to ensure the record accurately

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV031575: CLEVELAND vs DREYER BABICH BUCCOLA WOOD CAMPORA, LLP, et al. 09/09/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Order Deeming Complaint Filed Nunc Pro Tunc in Department 8C

reflects what should have occurred procedurally and that equity supports relief.

Defendant, in its opposition, argued 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 urged 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 extrapolated, “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.)

In its initial tentative ruling, the Court found this case 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.)

However, upon further inquiry, the Court noted that Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6(b)(4)(E) specifically governs the tolling of statutes of limitations when a complaint is rejected for noncompliance with electronic filing requirements. At the August 24, 2026 hearing, the Court directed the parties to submit supplemental briefing addressing Code of Civil Procedure Section 1010.6(e)(4)(E).

Section 1010.6(e)(4)(D) provides:

“Electronic filing” means the electronic transmission to a court of a document presented for filing in electronic form. For purposes of

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV031575: CLEVELAND vs DREYER BABICH BUCCOLA WOOD CAMPORA, LLP, et al. 09/09/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Order Deeming Complaint Filed Nunc Pro Tunc in Department 8C

this section, this definition of electronic filing concerns the activity of filing and does not include the processing and review of the document and its entry into the court’s records, which are necessary for a document to be officially filed.

Section 1010.6(e)(4)(E) provides:

If the clerk of the court does not file a complaint or cross complaint because the complaint or cross complaint does not comply with applicable filing requirements or the required filing fee has not been paid, any statute of limitations applicable to the causes of action alleged in the complaint or cross complaint shall be tolled for the period beginning on the date on which the court received the document and as shown on the confirmation of receipt described in subparagraph (A), through the later of either the date on which the clerk of the court sent the notice of rejection described in subparagraph (C) or the date on which the electronic filing service provider or electronic filing manager sent the notice of rejection as described in subparagraph (D), plus one additional day if the complaint or cross complaint is subsequently submitted in a form that corrects the errors which caused the document to be rejected. The party filing the complaint or cross complaint shall not make any change to the complaint or cross complaint other than those required to correct the errors which caused the document to be rejected.

Defendant argues that section 1010.6 establishes a defined tolling period tied to the Court’s receipt and the rejection notice, and does not provide for tolling through the date a filer eventually discovers or corrects a rejected filing.

Defendant also points the Court to Casola v. Dexcom, Inc. (9th Cir. 2024) 98 F.4th 947, 958-59, which recognized that section 1010.6(e)(4)(E) creates a specific tolling mechanism because submission of a document for electronic filing does not itself mean that the document has been filed.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV031575: CLEVELAND vs DREYER BABICH BUCCOLA WOOD CAMPORA, LLP, et al. 09/09/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Order Deeming Complaint Filed Nunc Pro Tunc in Department 8C

Defendant further argues that the undisputed timeline demonstrates that Plaintiff’s Complaint was untimely even with the benefit of that statutory tolling:

• December 19, 2025: The Court received Plaintiff’s initial submission. (Cleveland Decl., ¶ 3; Ex. A.)

• December 22, 2025: The Court issued its rejection notice. (Ex. A.)

• December 23, 2025: Assuming the additional one-day tolling provision applies based on Plaintiff’s subsequent corrected submission, the statutory tolling period ended.

• December 30, 2025: Plaintiff resubmitted her Complaint. (Cleveland Decl., ¶ 6.)

• December 31, 2025: The Court accepted the corrected Complaint for filing. (Cleveland Decl., ¶¶ 9-11.)

Plaintiff does not dispute that she failed to resubmit her complaint within the timeline allowed under Section 1010.6(e)(4)(E).

Plaintiff instead argues that Section 1010.6(e)(4)(E) is not the controlling remedy. Plaintiff argues that the initial electronic filing rejection was not justified. However, Section 1010.6(e)(4)(E)’s applicability does not turn on whether the electronic filing rejection was justified. It instead provides a straightforward rule to provide electronic filers a discreet window of time to correct the error that caused the rejection.

Furthermore, while Plaintiff argues that the system “imposed a de facto filing-fee requirement through its sequencing requirements,” she also admits that within a day of learning about the rejection, she was able to resubmit her complaint in an accepted format. Plaintiff argues that justice should dictate that her complaint should be deemed admitted upon an earlier date, but provides no explanation or justification for why she waited until the last moment to attempt to file her complaint before the statute of limitations was to expire, and why, knowing her filing was precariously close to the statute of limitations, she did not check to see whether her electronic submittal was accepted or rejected. However, the Court need not reach the issue of whether her

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV031575: CLEVELAND vs DREYER BABICH BUCCOLA WOOD CAMPORA, LLP, et al. 09/09/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Order Deeming Complaint Filed Nunc Pro Tunc in Department 8C

neglect was excusable pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) because a motion for relief under that stature is not presently before the Court.

The cases relied upon by Plaintiff in her supplemental briefing do not relate to the rejected electronic filing of a complaint after the passage of Section 1010.6(e)(4)(E).

The Court finds that Section 1010.6(e)(4)(E) is controlling and provides the precise window for resubmission of a rejected electronically filing of a complaint. Plaintiff failed to resubmit her complaint within the time allowed.

As a result, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

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