Martin v. Brazell CA1/5

Filed 11/12/24 Martin v. Brazell CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

EBONEE S. MARTIN, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, A169770

v. (Solano County Super. Ct. No. CU23-00315) RONALD BRAZELL, et al., Defendants and Respondents.

Plaintiffs Ebonee S. Martin and Shronna Martin (collectively, plaintiffs) appeal from the trial court’s order sustaining the demurrer of defendants and respondents Ronald Brazell and Terry L. Brazell (collectively, defendants) without leave to amend. The court held that plaintiffs’ action was time-barred because the complaint was filed 11 days after the two-year statute of limitations expired. We disagree. Plaintiffs timely presented their complaint for filing but had to re-file it after the clerk rejected their first filing on the ground that the civil case cover sheet was defective. Plaintiffs contend that their action is not time-barred because the clerk was required to file the complaint when they initially submitted it for filing. We agree and reverse.

1

I. BACKGROUND On March 7, 2023, plaintiffs submitted a complaint for negligence and wrongful death to the superior court clerk for filing. The complaint alleged March 11, 2021 as the date of loss. A summons and civil case cover sheet accompanied the complaint. The clerk file-stamped the complaint as received on March 7, 2023. On March 14, 2023, the clerk returned these documents to plaintiffs with a notice informing them that only one box instead of two should have been checked in a section of the civil case cover sheet. Plaintiffs corrected the purported error and refiled the complaint on March 22, 2023. Defendants filed a demurrer, contending that plaintiffs’ entire action was time-barred because the complaint was filed 11 days after the applicable two-year statute of limitations had expired on March 11, 2023. Plaintiffs countered that it would be unfair for the trial court to find their claims untimely because they submitted their complaint for filing before the limitations period ran and that submission was only rejected due to a defect in the civil case cover sheet. Plaintiffs did not, however, cite any legal authorities in their opposition. The court agreed with defendants and sustained the demurrer without leave to amend. Plaintiffs timely appealed.1 II. DISCUSSION We review an order sustaining a demurrer de novo and exercise our independent judgment as to whether the complaint states a cause of action as a matter of law. (Moore v. Regents of University of California (1990)