Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Mito v. Temple Recycling Corp. (Cal. Ct. App. - Aug. 8, 2010)

Three things about this opinion:

(1) I love how short it is. Love it. Five double-spaced pages. Yet says everything -- everything -- that need be said.

(2) The opinion is totally right. Indisputably. Plaintiffs filed a complaint on the last day of the statute of limitations, but didn't include a civil cover sheet. So the Clerk bounced it.

The Clerk can't do that. California Rule of Court 3.220(c) couldn't be clearer, and was enacted precisely for cases like this one. It says: "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 cover sheet at the time the party's first paper is submitted for filing, the clerk of the court must file the paper." How much clearer can you be?

(3) This shows the difference between the clerks in L.A. and the clerks elsewhere. Those in the City of Angels are notoriously . . . . well, I'll let you fill in the blank. Something along the lines of "strict" is probably the nicest way to finish that sentence. Whereas clerks in many other places, including San Diego, are a bit less interested in bouncing papers. Thankfully.

Good job, Justice Rothschild. Totally right.