Juan Silva v. Cesar Basulto Cervantes

Page | 2

94.) No other extrinsic evidence can be considered. (Ion Equipment Corp. v. Nelson (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 868, 881.) For the purpose of testing the sufficiency of the cause of action, the demurrer admits the truth of all material facts properly pleaded, i.e., ultimate facts alleged, but not contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law. (Serrano v. Priest (1971) 5 Cal.3d 584, 591; Adelman v. Associated Int’l. Ins. Co. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 352, 359.) Facts appearing in exhibits attached to the complaint will also be accepted as true and, if contrary to the allegations in the pleading, will be given precedence. (Del E.

Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d. 593, 604.) The plaintiff’s ability to prove the allegations is of no concern in ruling on a demurrer. (Committee on Children’s Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp. (1983) 35 Cal.3d. 197, 213- 214.) The complaint will be construed liberally. (Code Civ. Proc., §452.) If the complaint fails to state a cause of action, the court must grant the plaintiff leave to amend if there is a reasonable possibility the defect can be cured by amendment. (Blank v.

Kirwan, supra, 39 Cal.3d at p. 318.) On the other hand, “a trial court does not abuse its discretion by sustaining a general demurrer without leave to amend if it appears from the complaint that unde r applicable substantive law there is no reasonable possibility that an amendment could cure the complaint’s defect.” (Heckendorn v. City of San Marino (1986) 42 Cal.3d 481, 486.)

Analysis

Belated amendment. As a threshold issue, Defendant notes the Court’s October 17, 2025 ruling sustaining the demurrer granted Plaintiff only 15 days leave to amend. The amended

Page | 3

pleading was therefore due to be filed no later than November 3, 2025. However, Plaintiff filed the FAC one day later, on November 4, 2025. Defendant asks the Court dismiss the action due to this belated filing. A plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint within the time specified subjects the action to dismissal under Code of Civil Procedure section 581, subdivision (f)(2). However, such dismissal is discretionary. (Harlan v. Department of Transp. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 868, 874.) The Court declines to dismiss the action on this ground.

Statute of limitations. Plaintiff argues that the clerk of the court had no authority to reject Plaintiff’s filing of the original complaint on December 5, 2024, pursuant to the holding in Carlson v. State of California Department of Fish & Game (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1268 (Carlson). In Carlson, the plaintiff attempted to timely submit a complaint for filing with the Los Angeles Superior Court, but it was rejected because it failed to include a “Certificate of Assignment,” as required by a local rule.

Instead of filing the complaint, the clerk of the court mailed it back to counsel. By the time counsel was able to return the complaint to the court with a Certificate of Assignment several days later, the statute of limitations period had elapsed. (Carlson, supra, 68 Cal.App.4th at p. 127 0.) The appellate court reversed the trial court’s order sustaining the demurrer based on statute of limitations grounds. It held that, “the local superior court may not condition the filing of a complaint on local rule requirements.

Instead, so long as a complaint complies with state requirements, the clerk has a ministerial duty to file. In legal effect, a complaint is ‘filed’ when it is presented to the clerk for filing in the form required by state law.” (Ibid.) Code of Civil Procedure section 402, subdivision (a)(3), specifically provides that “the clerk may not reject a case for filing, because it is filed, or a person seeks to file it, in a court location other than the location specified by local rule.”

San B ernardino County Superior Court

Page | 4

Local Rule 131 provides the Presiding Judge shall designate where all actions shall be filed and heard by general order. But in Carlton, the court discussed that “the local superior court may not condition the filing of a complaint on local rule requirements. Instead, so long as a complaint complies with state requirements, the clerk has a ministerial duty to file. In legal effect, a co mplaint is ‘filed’ when it is presented to the clerk for filing in the form required by state law.” (Id. at p. 1270.)

The Court also discussed that nothing in Code of Civil Procedure section 575.2 authorizes a clerk to refuse to file a pleading for its f ailure to comply with the court’s local rule. (Carlson, supra, 68 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1279-1280.) Section 575.2, subdivision (b), explains the intent of the Legislature that failure to comply with local rules is the responsibility of counsel, not the party, and any penalty imposed should not affect a party’s cause of action. (Carlson, supra, 68 Cal.App.4th at p. 1280.)

If section 402, subdivision (a)(3), is considered, then Plaintiff’s original filing was improperly rejected and the clerk should have either transferred the submission to the correct location for filing, or accepted it for filing and the court, on its own motion, transferred it to the proper location.

Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6, subdivision (e)(4)(E), is specific to electronically filed documents and provides for a tolling of the statute of limitations when a clerk does not file a complaint because it “does not comply with applicable filing requirements or the required filing fee has not been paid.” It provides that any applicable statute of limitations “shall be tolled for the period beginning on the date on which the court received the document” through the later of either “the date on which the clerk of the court sent the notice of rejection” or “the date on which the electronic filing service provider or electronic filing manager sent the notice of rejection”, “plus

Page | 5

one additional day if the complaint ... is subsequently submitted in a form that corrects the errors which caused the document to be rejected. The party filing the complaint ... shall not make any change to the complaint ... other than those required to correct the errors which caused the document to be rejected” A reasonable interpretation of section 1010.6, subdivision (e)(4)(E), is that a clerk must first have legal authority to reject a complaint for it to apply. Again, “[t]he functions of the clerk are purely ministerial.” (Rojas v. Cutsforth (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 774, 777.) “‘When a proper offer of filing has been made by a party, the party shall not suffer for the failure of the cler k to perform his duty.’” (Rojas, supra, 67 Cal.App.4th at p. 778, quoting Dillon v. Superior Court (1914) 24 Cal. App. 760, 765-766.)

Defendant confusingly argues that “Plaintiff’s own documents reflect the clerk rejected the initial e-filing on February 18, 2025...” (Demurrer, 4:25-26.) The FAC alleges no such thing. The only reference in the FAC to February 18, 2025 is that One Legal sent an email on that date notifying that Plaintiff’s counsel that the firm credit card had been charged for $20.80. “[H]owever this newly discovered communication did not have any status update as to the filing.” (FAC, ¶22.) As a matter of pleading, the action can be considered filed on December 5, 2024 a nd is therefore timely. This can be challenged later in the case, but not at the pleading stage. The Court overrules the demurrer on this ground.1 Movant to give notice. Dated-

____________________________ Judge

1 Plaintiff alternatively argues the action is saved under the doctrine of equitable tolling f or much the same reasons. The Court need not reach this second argument.

Page | 6

TENTATIVE RULINGS 5-29-26 Department R17- Judge Gilbert G. Ochoa

This court follows California Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a) (1) for tentative rulings. (See San Bernardino Superior Court Local Emergency Rule 8.) Tentative rulings for each law & motion will be posted on the internet (https://www.sb-court.org) by 3:00 p.m. on the court day immediately before the hearing.

If you do not have internet access or if you experience difficulty with the posted tentative ruling, you may obtain the tentative ruling by calling the Administrative Assistant. You may appear in person at the hearing but personal appearance is not required and remote appearance by CourtCall is preferred during the Pandemic. (See www.sbcourt.org/general-information/remote-access)

If you wish to submit on the ruling, call the Court call the Court, check-in and state that you will be submitting on the Tentative, and your appearance is not necessary. But you must check in. If both sides do not appear, the tentative will simply become the ruling. If any party submits on the tentative, the Court will not alter the tentative and it will become the ruling. If one party wants to argue, Court will hear argument but will not change the tentative. If the Court does decide to modify tentative after argument, then a further hearing for oral argument will be reset for both parties to be heard at the same time by the Court. This procedure is meant to minimize your waiting time in Court.

ROBBI CARTER v. AMARI JONES CIVSB2221393

Motion(s): Motion to Set Aside Entry of Default and Default Judgment

Movant(s): Defendant Amari Jones

Respondent(s): Plaintiff Robbi Carter