| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Plaintiff Sarah Kurtzman’s Motion for Pro Tunc Order Amending the Filing Date
May 26, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 16 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04 ________________________________________________________________________
2:00 PM LINE 5 25-CIV-08957 SARAH KURTZMAN VS. CITY OF MENLO, ET AL.
SARAH KURTZMAN SHARONA ESLAMBOLY HAKIM CITY OF MENLO
PLAINTIFF SARAH KURTZMAN’S MOTION FOR PRO TUNC ORDER AMENDING THE FILING DATE OF FILED SUMMONS, CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET, AND COMPLAINT FROM NOVEMBER 4, 2025 TO OCTOBER 20, 2025, DATE OF INITIAL FILING AND REJECTION
TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiff Sarah Kurtzman’s Motion for Order Amending the Filing Date of the Filed Summons, Civil Case Cover Sheet, and Complaint from November 4, 2025, to October 20, 2025, Date of Initial Filing and Rejection, is GRANTED.
According to the evidence submitted, Kurtzman attempted to electronically file the Complaint on October 20, 2025. (Feb. 23, 2026 Motion, p. 5 et seq. (“Amirian Decl.”), exh. B.) The clerk of court rejected the filing due a defect in the civil case cover sheet—it failed to indicate whether the case was a class action. (Ibid.) The clerk of court was without power to reject the filing—even in the complete absence of the otherwise required cover sheet, the clerk must file the paper presented. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.220(c).)
When the filing of a complaint has been rejected by a clerk acting ultra vires, the remedy is to deem the complaint filed as of the date it was presented for filing. (Rojas v. Cutsforth (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 774, 778; see Carlson v. State of California Department of Fish & Game (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1268, 1272–1283; Dillon v. Superior Court (1914) 24 Cal.App. 760, 765–766.)
Here, the complaint and the other papers were presented for filing on October 20, 2025, and were required to have been filed by the clerk on that day. Accordingly, the motion is granted and the Complaint, Summons, and Civil Case Cover Sheet are hereby deemed filed as of October 20, 2025.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Judge Fineman discloses that prior to assuming her judicial office on December 1, 2017, she represented the County of San Mateo. She represented the County in People v. Atlantic Richfield, Santa Clara Case No. CV 788657. (See People v. ConAgra Grocery Products Co. (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 51.) Judge Fineman also represented the County of San Mateo in In re Natural Gas Antitrust Cases (Price Indexing), San Diego County, Nos. JCCP4221, JCCP4224, JCCP4226, and JCCP4228. (See Regents of University of California v. Superior Court (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 672.) Judge Fineman represented the County of San Mateo in other cases; she does not have the full names or case numbers for those cases. The law firm of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, where Judge Fineman was a partner, has also represented and may continue to represent the County of San Mateo in cases.
May 26, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 17 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04 ________________________________________________________________________
If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court. Thereafter, counsel for Plaintiff shall prepare, for the court’s signature, a written order consistent with this ruling, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312, and shall provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and by the California Rules of Court.