Rojas v. Cutsforth

California Court of Appeal Nov 3, 1998 No. No. B119159Published

Before: Gilbert

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a clerk has no authority to reject a complaint for insubstantial defects, such as a missing signature on a court assignment form or an incorrect address on a summons, and that such a complaint is deemed filed upon its initial presentation.

Issues

Whether a court clerk may reject a complaint for minor, insubstantial defects in filing documents.
Whether a complaint is deemed filed when presented to the clerk despite the clerk's improper rejection of the documents.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The clerk has no discretion to reject a complaint that substantially conforms to the local rules.”

“Where, as here, 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.”

“Because here the clerk had no proper basis for rejecting Rojas’s complaint, it must be deemed filed when it was presented on November 7, 1996.”

Opinion

GILBERT, Acting P. J. Plaintiff mailed a complaint to the clerk for filing. The clerk returned the unfiled complaint by mail because a declaration for court assignment was not signed and the summons contained the address of the wrong branch of the court. In the meantime, the statute of limitations passed. The trial court denied plaintiff’s request for a nunc pro tunc filing of the complaint and granted defendant summary judgment on the statute of limitations.

Plaintiff’s counsel said, “If there is a case that needs to be reversed, it is this one.” We agree and reverse.

[776]Facts

On November 20, 1995, Shannon Rojas was injured in an automobile accident. She retained Attorney Stephen Corcoran to file an action on her behalf against the other driver, Craig Elwin Cutsforth. On November 5, 1996, Corcoran’s office mailed a summons and complaint with a filing fee to the Clerk of the Ventura County Superior Court. Also enclosed was a “Declaration for Court Assignment,” a form required by the local court rules.

The clerk’s office received the documents on November 7, 1996. Instead of filing the documents, however, the clerk returned them by mail to Corcoran. Enclosed was a notice from the clerk informing Corcoran that the documents were being returned because the declaration for court assignment had not been signed and the summons did not reflect the address of the Simi Valley division of the court. Corcoran declared that he did not receive the clerk’s notice of rejection until November 27, 1996. He filed the complaint on the next court day, December 2, 1996.

Because the one-year statute of limitations had passed, Corcoran petitioned the superior court for an order requiring the clerk to file the complaint as of November 7, 1996, or in the alternative, for relief from default under Code of Civil Procedure section 473. The trial codrt relied on Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Gonzalez (1994) 31 Cal.App.4th 51 [36 Cal.Rptr.2d 769], and denied the petition. Defendant Cutsforth obtained summary judgment on the ground that Rojas’s action was barred by the statute of limitations.

Discussion

At the time the clerk rejected plaintiff’s documents, Superior and Municipal Court of Ventura County Rules, rule 2.05(B), provided in pertinent part: “[T]rials shall be heard in the division of this court nearest the proper venue based upon the criteria set forth in the Declaration for Court Assignment form.” There was no requirement as to when the form was to be filed.

Rojas v. Cutsforth

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief