Aquino v. Super. Ct.
A162836
Cal. Ct. App.Dec 23, 2021Background
- Plaintiff April Scott sued multiple defendants for injuries from three separate 2017 rear-end collisions in three counties; venue in Alameda County was alleged based on the Forni collision in Alameda.
- Defendants Jobs, Aquino, and Pacific Ocean Auto answered and cross-complained and asserted improper venue as an affirmative defense.
- Scott settled with the Forni defendants; the court made a good-faith settlement determination and an order dismissing Forni was filed in December 2020.
- After Forni’s dismissal, Jobs, Aquino, and Pacific Ocean Auto moved to transfer venue to Santa Clara County under Code Civ. Proc. § 397; the trial court denied the motion, concluding the defendants waived venue challenges.
- The superior court clerk mailed the written order denying the motion with a declaration signed May 12, 2021 (envelope bore a May 13 meter mark). Petitioners filed an appellate writ petition on June 11, 2021.
- The Court of Appeal dismissed the writ as untimely, holding the clerk’s declaration satisfied § 1013a and commenced the 20-day filing period under § 400 (plus mailing days), so the petition was late.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of appellate writ (§ 400) | Scott: clerk’s mailing of the order with a declaration constituted written notice triggering the 20‑day period. | Petitioners: clerk’s declaration failed § 1013a; notice should have been given by Scott under § 1019.5, so time never commenced. | Clerk’s declaration met § 1013a; clerk’s service triggered § 400; petition filed after deadline and is untimely (petition dismissed). |
| Waiver of venue in trial court | Scott: defendants waived venue by filing cross-complaints and opposing Forni’s good-faith settlement. | Petitioners: their cross-complaints and opposition did not constitute waiver. | Trial court found waiver, but appellate court did not reach or overturn merits because petition was dismissed as untimely. |
| Whether dismissal of the defendant responsible for the injury converts venue under § 395 into improper venue under § 397 | Scott: dismissal of Forni did not justify transfer; venue remained proper. | Petitioners: once the Alameda-based defendant was dismissed, venue based on that collision could no longer stand and transfer was warranted. | Not decided on merits by appellate court due to dismissal for untimeliness. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sturm, Ruger & Co. v. Superior Court, 164 Cal.App.3d 579 (1985) (clerk’s mailing of a minute order can commence the statutory period for writ review)
- Schmidt v. Superior Court, 207 Cal.App.3d 56 (1989) (clerk’s mailing of a minute order constituted written notice to trigger filing deadline)
- MinCal Consumer Law Group v. Carlsbad Police Dept., 214 Cal.App.4th 259 (2013) (Public Records Act writ period triggered by clerk’s mailing of minute order)
- Simplon Ballpark, LLC v. Scull, 235 Cal.App.4th 660 (2015) (service by mail must strictly comply with §§ 1013 and 1013a)
- M’Guinness v. Johnson, 243 Cal.App.4th 602 (2015) (interpretation favors a single, self-sufficient proof of service document; does not excuse timely filing when proper proof is served)
- Estate of Griswold, 25 Cal.4th 904 (2001) (judicial construction of similar statutory deadlines is persuasive)
- People v. Superior Court (Brent), 2 Cal.App.4th 675 (1992) (timeliness is a threshold jurisdictional issue)
- Forrest v. Department of Corporations, 150 Cal.App.4th 183 (2007) (distinguished: motion-for-reconsideration timing may be triggered by party service rather than clerk’s notice)