Wednesday, August 26, 2026
Page 1
Ninth Circuit:
Notice of Appeal Was Wrongly Bounced by Clerk’s Office
Justices Say Such an Action May Not Be Taken Based on Local Rule, Alone
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Trader Joe’s, socked with a $10,809,165 judgment against it in Stanislaus County, did not fail to file a timely notice of appeal where it trasmitted the requisite form to the Superior Court Clerk’s Office but it was bounced based on a local court rule requiring hard-copy filing of that particular type of document, the Fifth District Court of Appeal has declared.
The holding, on Monday, was two edged. Acting Presiding Justice Donald R. Franson Jr. wrote that the local rule is invalid and, in any event, a consequential filing cannot be barred by a clerk’s office where it satisfies the requirements of the state Rules of Court.
In the case at hand, if the attempted filing last Jan. 20 is given effect, Trader Joe’s appeal is before the Fifth District; otherwise, the judgment—pared from the $23,509,165 awarded to Zahra Gharraee by a jury, with the plaintiffs consent to avoid the granting of a new trial—stands.
Invalidity of Rule
Addressing the invalidity of the rule, Franson noted that the Stanislaus Superior Court allows electronic filing, but makes an exception for notices of appeal. He pointed out that California Rules of Court, rule 2.253(b)(1), “authorizes superior courts to mandate electronic filing in civil cases but requires that the resulting local rule specify ‘the types or categories of civil actions in which parties...are required to file...documents electronically.’ ”
He wrote:
“It does not authorize the superior court to adopt a local rule that mandates electronic filing in civil cases except for particular documents or categories of documents.”
That, he said, is what the local rule does, thus invalidating it.
Two Precedents
Franson went on to cite two 1998 Court of Appeal decisions from this district which prohibit the bouncing of complaints based on a local rule where the effect is to create a question as to whether the actions are time barred. The opinion underscores that the holdings in those cases apply to any filings where application of the local rule, where there is no violation of a state requirement, would be fatal to the action.
In the case of Rojas v. Cutsforth, Acting Presiding Justice Arthur Gilbert (later presiding justice, now retired) said in an opinion for Div. Six that there was no justification for bouncing a complaint based on a declaration for court assignment not being signed and the summons containing the address of the wrong branch of the court. He wrote:
“It is difficult enough to practice law without having the clerk’s office as an adversary. Here, paltry nit-picking took the place of common sense and fairness.
“Where, as here, the defect, if any, is insubstantial, the clerk should file the complaint and notify the attorney or party that the perceived defect should be corrected at the earliest opportunity….That should create no more difficulty than returning all the documents with a notice pointing out the defects. To deny [the plaintiff] her cause of action for lack of a signature makes a mockery of judicial administration.”
The other case cited in Monday’s decision is Carlson v. Department of Fish & Game. There, the Clerk’s Office rejected a complaint that conformed to state rules but did not include a form mandated by a local rule.
Then-Justice John Zebrowski (now an arbitrator/mediator) said that while local rules may be enforced, “they cannot be enforced by the method of rejecting filings which conform to state law.” He remarked that “[a]fter a paper is filed, the panoply of possible sanctions…become available to redress local rule violations.”
The case is Gharraee v. Trader Joe’s Company, 2026 S.O.S. 2662.
Copyright 2024, Metropolitan News Company