California  |  Civil Litigation

Legal Question

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

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?

2 Answers


Answered on: 5/01/13, 11:20 pm by Charles Perry

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


Did you find this answer helpful?

0 Users found this answer helpful.

0 Attorneys agree with this answer.


Law Offices of Charles R. Perry 1500 Bayberry Street Hollister, 95023

Other answers from this attorney

Answered on: 5/02/13, 8:40 am by Anthony 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.


Did you find this answer helpful?

0 Users found this answer helpful.

0 Attorneys agree with this answer.


Law Office of Anthony A. Roach 9909 Topanga Canyon, Ste.313 Chatsworth, CA 91311

Other answers from this attorney

Didn't find what you were looking for? Ask an Attorney!

Get answers from the top Attorneys
Ask Question

70 Answers given in the last few hours.

86611 Active attorneys ready to answer your question

Search Past Answers:
  Advanced Search