Case Number: BC678661 Hearing Date: March 21, 2018 Dept: 97

Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Department 97

Lidia E Cornelio, et al.,

Plaintiff,

v.

County of Los Angeles, et al.,

Defendant.

Case No.: BC678661

Hearing Date: March 21, 2018

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

Plaintiff’s motion to Fix the Filing Date of the Summons and Complaint

No dispositive tentative ruling is issued at this time. Plaintiff requests that the Court change the date of filing of the Complaint to the date that the Complaint was transmitted by facsimile to the Court. Plaintiff has also provided a stipulation signed by both Plaintiff and Defendant County of Los Angeles, to change the date of filing to the date the complaint was transmitted by fax filing to the Los Angeles Superior Court.

However, according to both the state and local rules of court, the Los Angeles Superior Court did not accept facsimile filings for the Personal Injury Courts at the time Plaintiff faxed the complaint to the Court on September 29, 2017. California Rules of Court, Rule 2.304(a) provides that “[a] party may file by fax directly to any court that, by local rule, has provided for direct fax filing.” (Emphasis added.) Los Angeles Superior Court Rule 2.22(a), entitled “Authorization to Accept Facsimile Filing,” in turn, provides that “[t]he court permits facsimile filing in general civil (except for cases assigned to the Personal Injury courts), family law, and probate cases pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 2.300 et seq. and the following rules.” (Emphasis added.) The revision of Local Rule 2.22(a) that resulted in the exclusion of personal injury courts from fax filing became effective on July 1, 2016.

The Court notes that in this case Plaintiff first attempted to file the complaint via E-Delivery, which is an acceptable method of delivery for the Personal Injury Courts. (CA R. Los Angeles Super. Ct. Rule 2.22, subd. (c).) Exhibit 2 of Plaintiff’s motion demonstrates that Plaintiff attempted to file the complaint by E-Delivery on September 28, 2017, but the clerk of the court rejected the e-Delivered complaint on the grounds that Plaintiff had incorrectly checked off a box on the Civil Cover Sheet identifying the case as “complex.” (See also Anvari Decl., at ¶¶ 8, 10, 13.) The Civil Cover Sheet must be submitted with the first paper filed in very action under the California Rules of Court, Rule 3.220. However, Rule 3.220(c) states in relevant part: “If a party that is required to provide a cover sheet under this rule or a similar local rule fails to do so or provides a defective or incomplete coversheet at the time of the party’s first paper is submitted for filing, the clerk of the court must file the paper.” (Emphasis added.) Therefore, the Clerk’s rejection of Plaintiff’s e-Delivered Complaint on September 28, 2017 was improper.

Accordingly, the Court will entertain a stipulation between the parties to back date the filing date of the Complaint nunc pro tunc to September 28, 2017. The method of fax filing the complaint on September 29, 2017 was improper under both the state and local rules of court. Therefore, back dating the complaint to September 29, 2017 would be improper. However, the Clerk should not have rejected the Complaint e-Delivered on September 28, 2017 on the grounds of the incorrect labeling of the case as “complex” on the Civil Cover Sheet. (CRC, Rule 3.220, subd. (c).)

//

//

//

//

If the parties wish to so stipulate, they must file a stipulation with the Court at or before the hearing set for March 21, 2018, with a courtesy copy delivered directly to Department 97.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this order.

DATED: March 21, 2018 ___________________________

Elaine Lu

Judge of the Superior Court