Legal Opinion
Mito v. Temple Recycling Center Corp.
California Court of Appeal
Decided August 9, 2010No. B219934PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
ROTHSCHILD, J.
Plaintiffs Karoleen and Magda Mito appeal from an order dismissing their complaint with prejudice for failure to file it within the statute of limitations. Plaintiffs presented their complaint for filing to the superior court clerk on July 24, 2008, which date was within the applicable two-year statute of limitations. The clerk rejected it on the ground that plaintiffs failed to attach the “Civil Case Cover Sheet Addendum and Statement of Location” (the Cover Sheet) required by a local court rule. Plaintiffs contend that California Rules of Court, rule 3.220(c), required…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Ward v. TaggartCalifornia Supreme Court · 1959
- Smith v. Rae-Venter Law GroupCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
- Carlson v. STATE DEPT. OF FISH AND GAMECalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
- MAGINN v. City of GlendaleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1999
- Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. GonzalezCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1994
3Cited by3 opinions
- Balaoing v. Nissan North America, Inc.District Court, E.D. California · 2023
- Knudsen v. Dept. of Motor VehiclesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2024
- Martinez v. Airbnb, IncDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2023