MEMORANDUM DECISION OF SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE
Plаintiff appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his complaint, which was filed after the running of the statute of limitations. After a review of plaintiff’s amended docketing statement, we conclude that the issue presented on appeаl is so insubstantial as *678 to not merit further review. Therefore, we summarily affirm the trial court, sua sponte. R.Utah Ct.App. 10(e).
The relevant procedural facts of this case are undisputed. On review of an order dismissing the plaintiffs complaint, wе accept as true the allegations of the complaint.
Butcher v. Gilroy,
On June 17,1987, the plaintiff’s attorney mailed a complaint and the requisite filing fee to the clerk of the court via the United States mail. Several days later, when the attorney inquired as to what had beсome of the complaint and the filing fee, he was informed by the clerk’s office that they had not been recеived. A copy of the original complaint was subsequently delivered to the clerk and filed on July 7, 1987, and the filing fee was thеn paid. According to plaintiff’s attorney, the originally mailed complaint and filing fee were never receivеd by the clerk’s office.
Plaintiff argues that under Utah Code Ann. § 63-37-1(2) (1986), the mailing of a complaint and filing fee constitutes commеncement of an action for the purposes of the statute of limitations. Section 63-37-1 provides, in part, that:
Any report, claim, tax return, statement or other document or any payment required or authorized to be filed or mаde to the state of Utah, or to any political subdivision thereof, which is:
(1) Transmitted through the United States mail, shall be deemed filed or made and received by the state ... on the date shown by the post-office cancellation mаrk....
(2) Mailed but not .received by the state or political subdivisions where received and the cancellation mаrk is illegible, erroneous, or omitted, shall be deemed filed or made and received on the date it was mailed if thе sender establishes by competent evidence that the report, claim, tax return, statement or other doсument or payment was deposited in the United States mail on or before the date for filing or paying....
Plaintiff contends that his complaint and filing fee were deemed filed on June 17, 1987, the date on which he deposited them in the mail. Addressing а similar argument regarding the timely filing of a notice of appeal, the Utah Supreme Court expressly rejected the claim that this statute applies to judicial proceedings. In
Isaacson v. Dorius,
The statute upon which appellant relies expressly refers only to “a report, claim, tax return, stаtement or other document” that is required or authorized to be filed with the state or with its political subdivision. This language does not include the commencement of a legal action 'in the courts of this state, as specifically described in Utah R.Civ.P. 3. Under the doctrine of
ejusdem generis,
where general language is used together with specific words, the meaning of thе general language is generally restricted to a sense analogous to the specific words. The statutory lаnguage used here has little affinity to legal pleadings. The reference to “other document” relates to such documents similar in nature to reports, tax returns and claims against the state.
Isaacson,
669
*679
P.2d at 851.
See also In re Disconnection оf Certain Territory from Highland City,
The issue raisеd by appellant in his amended docketing statement was clearly rejected in Isaacson. Appellant cites no authority, and we find none, to support the contention that section 63-37-1 was intended to include the commencement of a legal action in our state courts or that a court’s jurisdiction may be invoked by merely depositing a comрlaint in the mail. A civil action is commenced either by the filing of a complaint with the clerk of court or by the serviсe of a summons. When a complaint is “filed,” a copy must be “deposited with the court.” “Deposit with the court” doеs not mean deposit in the mail. See Utah R.Civ.P. 3(b) and 5(e).
The decisions of other states under similar statutory provisions or rules likewise rejeсt appellant’s reasoning.
See Squatrito v. Barnett,
The statute of limitations expired before plaintiff’s action was properly commenced. Dismissal by the court bеlow is summarily affirmed.
Notes
. In 1983, the rules governing the filing of appeals were contained in the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules 72 аnd 73. These rules were later supplanted by the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rules 3 and 4, effective January 1, 1985, and by the separate Rules of the Utah Court of Appeals and the Rules of the Utah Supreme Court in 1987.