What is a Civil Case Cover Sheet?

A civil case cover sheet must be filed with a complaint.

However, the Plaintiff sometimes fails to file the required civil case cover sheet (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.220(a); Judicial Council form CM-010). (The purpose of the civil case cover sheet addendum is to identify the appropriate venue.)

The Court has inherent authority to enter retroactive orders. (See Scalice v. Performance Cleaning Systems (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 221, 238-239.) Per California Rules of Court, rule 2.100, “No trial court, or any division or branch of a trial court, may enact or enforce any local rule concerning the form or format of papers.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.100, subd. (a).) While this rule permits the clerk to refuse to file a paper that does not conform to the California Rules of Court, it precludes the clerk from refusing to file a paper that does not conform to a local rule. (See Carlson v. State of California Department of Fish & Game (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1268, 1272.)

The clerk may not reject papers solely because plaintiff fails to file a civil case cover sheet required by the California Rules of Court or similar local rule, or provides an incorrect or incomplete cover sheet. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.220(c); Mito v. Temple Recycling Ctr. Corp. (2010) 187 Cal. App. 4th 276, 280 (complaint improperly rejected because not accompanied by civil case cover sheet required by L.A. Sup.Ct. Rule 2.3(a)(1)(C)).)

The potential consequences for failure to comply with local rules are set forth at CCP § 575.2, which provides:

  1. Local rules promulgated pursuant to Section 575.1 may provide that if any counsel, a party represented by counsel, or a party if in pro se, fails to comply with any of the requirements thereof, the court on motion of a party or on its own motion may strike out all or any part of any pleading of that party, or, dismiss the action or proceeding or any part thereof, or enter a judgment by default against that party, or impose other penalties of a lesser nature as otherwise provided by law, and may order that party or his or her counsel to pay to the moving party the reasonable expenses in making the motion, including reasonable attorney fees. No penalty may be imposed under this section without prior notice to, and an opportunity to be heard by, the party against whom the penalty is sought to be imposed.
  2. It is the intent of the Legislature that if a failure to comply with these rules is the responsibility of counsel and not of the party, any penalty shall be imposed on counsel and shall not adversely affect the party's cause of action or defense thereto.

But a Court may impose sanctions for failing to respond to an Order to Show Cause Re: Monetary Sanctions (hereinafter “OSC”) for failure to file a Civil Case Cover Sheet as required by CRC Rule 3.220(a).

Useful Rulings on Civil Case Cover Sheet

Recent Rulings on Civil Case Cover Sheet

MARTINA CAPULONG, ET AL. VS VERMONT HEALTHCARE CENTER, LLC, ET AL.

Final Note Plaintiff, when he filed his complaint, filed the required Civil Case Cover Sheet. Plaintiff chose the box for “Other petition (not specified above).” This resulted in the assignment of an LBCP case number, rather than an LBCV case number. This case is NOT a petition. This is a civil case. Plaintiff could have chosen the box for “Other complaint,” but not for “Other petition.”

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

RICHARD ANDERSON, ET AL. VS GINNA CASKEY, ET AL.

Although it appears incorrect, the civil case cover sheet addendum filed by Plaintiffs’ counsel certifies that a Defendant resides in Los Angeles County. (See Reason 5, Civil Case Sheet Addendum.) The Court finds that Defendant has met her burden to demonstrate that venue based on the defendants’ residence is proper in Ventura County, CA. 2.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

JANE GIBSON VS CHENG MENG LAM

Upon realizing the error, Plaintiff filed an Amended Civil Case Cover Sheet on February 7, 2020 indicating that this was an unlimited case. (Id. at ¶5.) Plaintiff’s counsel did not realize the case assignment was not changed until later review of the online case summary and promptly filed the Motion to Reclassify. (Id. at ¶6.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

LAWERENCE EBER VS VETERANS CARE COORDINATION, LLC., A MISSOURI LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

Plaintiff’s attorney must carefully utilize the Civil Case Cover Sheet in the future to avoid this confusion. Defendants, Stacy John Sanchez and Stacys In Home Care, Inc. demur to each and every cause of action in the complaint. They contend each cause of action is uncertain and also fails to state a cause of action. Initial Note On 6/30/20, by stipulation of the parties, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint.

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

SCOTT MADEL VS BIOHEALTH DIAGNOSTICS LABORATORY, ET AL.

Defendants’ motion does not argue that the case was filed in an improper district, noting Plaintiff selected permissive filing in the Central District on the Civil Case Cover Sheet. (Mo. at 2; LASC Local Rule 2.3(a)(1)(B).) Defendants contend “the Southwest Judicial District is the more appropriate district where the action should be tried” based upon the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice. (Mo. at 4.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 03, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

NATIONAL COMMERCIAL RECOVERY, INC. VS THE DESTINEY GROUP INC, ET AL.

The Civil Case Cover Sheet filed with the initial complaint completed “Step 4: Statement of Reason and Address” by checking reason 5, “location where performance required or defendant resides,” and using 4800 District Blvd. Vernon, CA 90058 as the relevant address. As a result, Plaintiff’s counsel certified the case was properly filed in the Southeast District.

  • Hearing

    Aug 27, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

DARRYN HAMMOND, ET AL. VS ARENA FOOTBALL LEAGUE, LLC, ET AL.

TAF requests judicial notice of Plaintiffs’ original complaint, Plaintiffs’ Civil Case Cover sheet, Order of exemption from electronic filing, Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, and Exhibit A to the SAC. Plaintiffs object to Disney’s request on the ground that the Court granted an order of exemption backdating the filing of the original complaint from February 21, 2019 to February 19, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Aug 26, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

DIANE HIGHTREE V. AMPLIFY, LTD.

(Complaint, ¶¶ 10-12, 18; Civil Case Cover Sheet Addendum, last par.) The negative implication of putting off Vanden Berge’s counsel until the latest possible time is that Vanden Berge would present a different perspective on the class claims than counsel for Hightree. If preliminary approval of the settlement is granted, notice would be given of the settlement and Vanden Berge would then have the opportunity to object.

  • Hearing

    Aug 25, 2020

APODACA V. RANDSTAD US LLC, ET AL.

Because Plaintiff failed to initially identify this action as complex in its civil case cover sheet, the action was not deemed complex until January 15, 2020. At that time, RANDSTAT’s special demurrer was already pending. Pursuant to this department’s standard complex case management orders, discovery was stayed pending the initial case management conference. COCA COLA’s motions were subsequently filed.

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

YELENA ZOLOTOVA VS AARON COVINGTON

However, the Complaint was rejected by the court’s filing system because the Complaint and civil case cover sheet were filed as one document. (Id.) Although the Complaint was re-filed after the statute of limitations expired, Plaintiff argued, the Complaint should be deemed filed as of September 16, 2019, the first day it was presented to the clerk. (Id.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 13, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JAIME REYES VS SUPER PIZZA VELOZ, ET AL.

However, the Complaint was rejected by the court’s filing system because the Complaint and civil case cover sheet were filed as one document. (Id.) Although the Complaint was re-filed after the statute of limitations expired, Plaintiff argued, the Complaint should be deemed filed as of September 16, 2019, the first day it was presented to the clerk. (Id.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 13, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JENNIFER HERRINGTON V. THE NATURE CONSERVANCY, ET AL.

In her civil case cover sheet addendum filed with the original complaint, plaintiff’s counsel represents that venue is proper in South County pursuant to Government Code 12965, subdivision (b). (Civil Case Cover Sheet Addendum, filed Nov. 21, 2019.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 10, 2020

PR NEWSWIRE ASSOCIATION LLC VS CROWDS ON DEMAND LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

The court has reviewed the relevant documents and identified the following issue: - Plaintiff has filed a complaint, summons, and civil case cover sheet, but no proof of service for these documents. Therefore, the court cannot determine whether defendant was properly served. Default is DENIED. Plaintiff must provide a proof of service indicating defendant was validly served with the complaint and summons.

  • Hearing

    Aug 03, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

VERSAILLES PALACE MANAGEMENT, LLC VS TIEMING SONG

., Defendant was personally served with the summons, complaint, civil case cover sheet, notice of case assignment and prejudgment claim right of possession by California registered process server Thomas McIntyre (“McIntyre”). CCP § 415.10 governs substitute service on individuals. It provides, in relevant part, that “[a] summons may be served by personal delivery of a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the person to be served . . .”

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

RAQUEL DEVLIN, ET AL. VS IN RE RAQUEL ISIS GASS

Notably, the civil case cover sheet indicates the location of the incident is 7048 E. El Paseo St. in Long Beach; however, the petition indicates this is Claimant’s address. Petitioner must either clarify the address by way of an amended petition or must dismiss this petition and seek the requested relief in the Central District. At ¶14e, Petitioner indicates that she paid expenses to be reimbursed in the amount of $1308.87.

  • Hearing

    Jul 23, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

HEE WOO LEE VS PATRICK IN HWAN CHOI

However, the Court will not take judicial notice of the truth of the matters asserted in the Civil Case Cover Sheet addendum and Statement of Location filed on 4/2/19. (RJN, Exh. 1.) Plaintiff’s 6/16/20 request for judicial notice of Civil Code §1624(a) is denied. The Court need not take judicial notice of the existence to the statute to rely on it in issuing its ruling. By way of background, Plaintiff, in pro per, filed her complaint on April 2, 2019, against of Defendant Patrick I.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

YANCE GOMEZ ET AL VS FCA US LLC

Plaintiffs seek costs for $435.00 for the Complaint, Summons, Civil Case Cover Sheet, Cert of Assignment, $100.01 for Ex Parte Application, Declaration and Prop. Order, $22.30 for Notice of Ruling on Ex Parte Application, and $11.16 for Notice of Cancellation of Informal Discovery Conference. Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5 expressly allows the prevailing party to recover these costs. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (a)(1).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

STRUCTURAL STEEL FABRICATORS, INC. VS MZN CONSTRUCTION, INC., ET AL.

The Court deemed that Plaintiff’s Civil Case Cover Sheet, Summons and Complaint were filed on June 5, 2019. Third Cause of Action, Mechanic’s Lien: OVERRULED The Mechanic’s Lien was recorded in the Los Angeles County’s Recorder’s Office on March 7, 2019. Plaintiff had ninety days after recording to file the suit to enforce the mechanic’s lien. (Civ. Code § 8460(a).) Therefore, the deadline to file suit was June 5, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

NATALIE HOCKEY VS BRIGHTON COLLECTIBLES LLC

Plaintiff shall file and serve a completed civil case cover sheet addendum pursuant to Santa Barbara County Superior Court Local Rules, rule 1310, on or before July 16, 2020. Background: (1) Plaintiff’s Complaint On December 16, 2019, plaintiff Natalie Hockey filed her complaint in this action against defendant Brighton Collectibles, LLC (Brighton). The complaint alleges one cause of action for penalty wages pursuant to Labor Code section 203.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

NGUYEN V. MAHAFFIE

There was no complaint, ADR package, civil case cover sheet, notice of assignment, standing case management order, or notice of acknowledgment and receipt included; only a copy of the request for entry of default. Defendant declares that the request for entry of default was the first time he learned that this case had been filed against him, as he had not previously been served with any summons and complaint, nor had he been provided with any prior notice regarding this action. (Mahaffie Decl., ¶ 3.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

LENA GRANT VS IVONNE CASTANEDA, ET AL.

The clerk, however, had rejected the filing on the basis that Plaintiffs had failed to attach the “Civil Case Cover Sheet Addendum and Statement of Location” (the Cover Sheet) required by LASC Local Rule.” (Ibid.) The Court of Appeal agreed with Plaintiffs’ contention that California Rules of Court Rule 3.220(c) required the clerk to file the complaint despite the absence of this “Cover Sheet” and remanded the case to the trial court with directions to treat the complaint as filed on July 24, 2008. (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

LENA GRANT VS IVONNE CASTANEDA, ET AL.

The clerk, however, had rejected the filing on the basis that Plaintiffs had failed to attach the “Civil Case Cover Sheet Addendum and Statement of Location” (the Cover Sheet) required by LASC Local Rule.” (Ibid.) The Court of Appeal agreed with Plaintiffs’ contention that California Rules of Court Rule 3.220(c) required the clerk to file the complaint despite the absence of this “Cover Sheet” and remanded the case to the trial court with directions to treat the complaint as filed on July 24, 2008. (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 17, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

DO WOO KIM, ET AL. VS HYUN JONG HAN, ET AL.

Each Proof of Service for each Moving Defendant indicates that the following documents were served: summons, complaint, ADR package, Civil Case Cover Sheet. None of the Proofs of Service indicate that a Form CIV-105 or other type of Doe Amendment document was served upon Moving Defendants. (See Decl. of Moving Def.’s, Exh. A.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 11, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge

    Richard E. Rico or Jon R. Takasugi

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

YELENA ZOLOTOVA VS AARON COVINGTON

Plaintiff explains the documents were rejected online because the Complaint and the Civil Case Cover Sheet were impermissibly filed as one document. (Id.) A demurrer can be utilized where the dates in the complaint demonstrate that the cause of action is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. (Vaca v. Wachovia Mortg. Corp. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 737, 746.) An action for personal injury must be brought within two years. (Code Civ. Proc., § 335.1.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

STRUCTURAL STEEL FABRICATORS, INC. VS MZN CONSTRUCTION, INC., ET AL.

Plaintiff requests that the court grant relief from the erroneous rejection and deem that the Civil Case Cover Sheet, Summons and Complaint were filed on June 5, 2019, or alternatively that it deem that the Civil Case Cover Sheet and Complaint were filed on June 5, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Feb 24, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.