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

MARTIN BALMACEDA VS ZHICHENG LIU ET AL

According to Lukken: On August 24, 2019, [Plaintiff’s counsel] engaged me to arrange for translation and service of the following documents: Summons Complaint (Personal Injury) Causes of Action—Motor Vehicle and General Negligence Civil Case Cover Sheet with Addendum Notice of Case Assignment with 7th Amended General Order Statement of Damages (Id., ¶ 8.) Simply, there is no evidence in the record that Plaintiff’s counsel attempted to serve a deposition subpoena on Liu.

  • Hearing

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

A Personal Injury Action is an unlimited civil case described on the Civil Case Cover Sheet Addendum and Statement of Location (LACIV 109) as Motor Vehicle-Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death; Personal Injury /Property Damage/Wrongful Death-Uninsured Motorist; Product Liability; Intentional Bodily Injury/Property Damage; Wrongful Death; or Other Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death. (Local Rule, Rule 2.3(a)(1)(A).)

  • Hearing

TAMARA CHOLAKIAN VS STEPHEN SANTEN

Plaintiff’s filing of proof of service indicates that Defendant was personally served with summons, complaint, civil case cover sheet, and civil case cover sheet addendum and notice of case management on March 5, 2020. California Code of Civil Procedure section 435, subdivision (b)(1) requires Defendant to file this instant motion within 30 days of the service, unless such time is extended by the Court or stipulation.

  • Hearing

DWAYNE ANDERSON VS UNION SUPPLY DIRECT AND PRESIDENT & CEO

Having considered the motion, the Court will provide Plaintiff with two copies each of the Civil Complaint, Civil Case Cover Sheet, Civil Case Cover Sheet Addendum and Statement of Location, Summons, and Court Order on Fee Waiver. Clerk to give notice.

  • Hearing

SWIFT FINANCIAL, LLC F/K/A SWIFT FINANCIAL CORPORATION, AS SERVICING AGENT FOR WEBBANK, IN SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO CELTIC BA VS ROYAL TECH LLC, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Respondents were each served with the Petition, Notice of Case Assignment, and Civil Case Cover Sheet Addendum by substituted service at Mr. Hayrapetyan’s home address at 6535 Genry Ave., North Hollywood, CA 91606 on July 11, 2020 by leaving the documents with John Doe (Male, White, 20s, 5’5”, 150 pounds, black hair, dark eyes). The documents were thereafter mailed on July 13, 2020. Mr. Hayrapetyan is the registered agent for service of Royal Tech LLC. Service was effectuated by Ataolah A.

  • Hearing

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

OLAWALE 'WALE' B. ONAYEMI, TRUSTEE OF THE OLAWALE (WALE) BABATUNDE ONAYEMI LIVING TRUST VS U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Plaintiff seeks to reclassify the case because Plaintiff’s counsel incorrectly checked the limited jurisdiction box on the civil case cover sheet when this action was filed instead of unlimited jurisdiction. (Mot., p. 2:23-27; Richards Decl., ¶ 2.) As noted above, Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief. Declaratory relief in a limited jurisdiction court is not permitted except as expressly authorized by Code of Civil Procedure section 86. (Code Civ. Proc., § 580, subd. (b)(4).)

  • Hearing

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

FUDGE VS CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH, CITY COUNCIL OF CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH, AND ITS PLANNING COMMISSION

In addition to the fact that Exhibit B to the opposition evidences payment of the fee, Petitioner himself designated this case complex upon filing (see Civil Case Cover Sheet (ROA 4)), and it was heard and decided in a complex courtroom. (The Court notes that Petitioner’s lead counsel changed law firms while this matter was pending. One possible explanation for the lack of records is that the receipt got lost in the shuffle when the case file was transferred from Morrison & Foerster to King & Spalding.)

  • Hearing

AMM RESTORATION & CONSTRUCTION, INC. VS 3442 CENTINELLA LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY DBA ALMAN APARTMENTS, ET AL.

The Civil Case Cover Sheet filed with the complaint indicated the East District was the proper filing location based upon reason number 5 “Location where performance required or defendant resides” and used 1338 Center Court Drive, Suite 201, Covina, CA 91724 as the relevant address. The motion is accompanied by the parties’ stipulation to transfer the action to the Stanley Mosk Courthouse. (Topp Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. B.) Defendant also provides evidence that it resides at 2150 Hillhurst Ave.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

AMY C. STINSTROM, ET AL. VS ANGELENO MORTUARY, A BUSINESS ORGANIZATION FORM UNKNOWN

Defendant notes the Civil Case Cover Sheet filed with the complaint indicated the Central District was the proper filing location based upon reason number 5 “Location where performance required or defendant resides” and used 5948 Van Nuys Boulevard Van Nuys, CA 91401 as the relevant address.

  • Hearing

HTD PINE PRODUCTS, LLC., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS DZUNG D. NGUYEN, ET AL.

Plaintiff’s attorney must carefully utilize the Civil Case Cover Sheet in the future to avoid this confusion. Case Management Conference The Court has a CMC scheduled concurrently with the hearing on this motion to strike. The Court asks the parties to make arrangements to appear remotely at the CMC.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

ERNESTINE TILLIS VS. GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY

A review of the court file shows that Plaintiff filed an undated Proof of Service showing service of the summons, complaint and Civil Case Cover Sheet on "Dane Blommaert; GEICO Investigator; Claims" [ROA 21]. GEICO does not address this Proof of Service in its moving papers and has not filed a reply.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

ERNESTINE TILLIS VS. GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY

A review of the court file shows that Plaintiff filed an undated Proof of Service showing service of the summons, complaint and Civil Case Cover Sheet on "Dane Blommaert; GEICO Investigator; Claims" [ROA 21]. GEICO does not address this Proof of Service in its moving papers and has not filed a reply.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

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

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

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

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

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.