Legal Opinion
Rojas v. Cutsforth
California Court of Appeal
Decided November 3, 1998No. B119159PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
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.
*776Facts
On November…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Harris v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992
- City of Los Angeles v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968
- Dillon v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1914
- Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. GonzalezCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1994
3Cited by13 opinions
- Lauren Casola v. Dexcom, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2024
- Carlson v. STATE DEPT. OF FISH AND GAMECalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
- MAGINN v. City of GlendaleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1999
- Duran v. St. Luke's HospitalCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2003
- Voit v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.