JOSE NOE CASTILLO VS EL POTRERO CLUB, ET AL.

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: *******5881 Hearing Date: June 8, 2022 Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE: Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached. If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit. The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling. If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged). Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

Plaintiff Jose Noe Castillo moves for an order nunc pro tunc correcting the filing date of Plaintiff’s complaint. The motion is unopposed.

ANALYSIS

The Court has inherent authority to enter retroactive orders. (See Scalice v. Performance Cleaning Systems (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 221, 238-239.) A request for a retroactive order “is to be granted or refused as justice may require in view of the circumstances of a particular case.” (Young v. Gardner-Denver Co. (1966) 244 Cal.App.2d 915, 919.)

Here, Plaintiff advances the declaration of Xiomara Varela (“Varela”), who is the custodian of records for Southgate, which works for Plaintiff’s counsel of record. Varela states she e-filed Plaintiff’s complaint and cover sheet in this action through One Legal on February 19, 2019. (Declaration of Xiomara Varela, 3.) Varela states she then received confirmation from One Legal that the Court had received the filing and would reflect the filing date of February 19, 2019. (Declaration of Xiomara Varela, 5; Exhibit A.) Plaintiff thus argues correction of the filing date from February 22, 2019, to February 19, 2019, is proper because Plaintiff timely presented his complaint to the Clerk of the Court for filing during business hours on February 19, 2019, and, consequently, Plaintiff’s action commenced on that date, i.e., within the statute of limitations. (See Carlson v. Department of Fish & Game (1998) 68 Cal.app.4th 1268, 1270-1274; United Farm Workers of America v. Agricultural Labor Relations Board (1985) 37 Cal.3d 912, 918 [for purposes of the statute of limitations, “filing” means delivery to the clerk during business hours].) Accordingly, the Court grants the motion.

Plaintiff shall give notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of the same.

b'

Case Number: *******5881 Hearing Date: August 20, 2021 Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE: Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If the parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

Plaintiff Jose Noe Castillo (“Plaintiff”) moves for an order nunc pro tunc correcting the filing date of Plaintiff’s complaint. Defendants El Potrero Club, Potrero Club, El Potrero Nightclub, El Potrero Club Cudahy, Potrero Nightclub, Ochin Security Patrol, Pedro Contreras, Antonio Chinchilla Saray, and Marina A. Salamanca have not filed an opposition to the motion.

ANALYSIS

The Court has inherent authority to enter retroactive orders. (See Scalice v. Performance Cleaning Systems (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 221, 238-239.) A request for a retroactive order “is to be granted or refused as justice may require in view of the circumstances of a particular case.” (Young v. Gardner-Denver Co. (1966) 244 Cal.App.2d 915, 919.)

Here, the Court finds Plaintiff has not submitted sufficient, competent evidence in support of the motion. Plaintiff relies on the Declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel, Vincent W. Davis (“Counsel”). Plaintiff has not provided an adequate foundation for Exhibit A to Counsel’s declaration. (Evid. Code, ; 1401.) With respect to the filing of complaint on February 19, 2019, Counsel’s declaration relies on inadmissible hearsay. (Evid. Code, ; 1200, subd. (a).)

Accordingly, the Court denies the motion without prejudice. Plaintiff shall give notice of the Court’s ruling and file proof of service of the same.