Legal Question in Civil Litigation in California

2 rulings: Rojas v Cutsforth and Voit v Superior Court....the Courts ruled that a clerk "should" accept papers for filing if they comply with the Rules of Court even with "defects" and the clerk "should" file the papers and notify the filing party to correct the defects.....my question is, does the use of "should" as opposed to "shall" impose a mandatory duty or is the duty considered discretionary?

Asked on 5/01/13, 6:07 pm

2 Answers from Attorneys

Charles Perry Law Offices of Charles R. Perry

"Should" is not mandatory. Clerks, however, have generally got the message and follow the the court's recommendation.

Read more
Answered on 5/01/13, 11:20 pm
Anthony Roach Law Office of Anthony A. Roach

It's discretionary. It can be a pain where your papers are correct, and the clerk thinks they are wrong, and then rejects them. That creates a hassle when you have to wait in line, as an attorney, just to speak to their supervisor.

Read more
Answered on 5/02/13, 8:40 am


Related Questions & Answers

More General Civil Litigation questions and answers in California