Filed 8/24/26
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
ZAHRA GHARRAEE,
F091184
Plaintiff and Appellant,
(Super. Ct. No. CV-21-005695)
v.
TRADER JOE'S COMPANY,
Defendant and Appellant. OPINION
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Sonny S.
Sandhu, Judge.
Kahana & Feld, Sebastian Kaplan and Donald L. Hall III for Defendant and
Appellant.
Levin & Nalbandyan and Harry Nalbandyan for Plaintiff and Appellant.
-ooOoo-
Defendant and appellant Trader Joe’s Company (Trader Joe’s) appealed a civil
judgment which found it negligent and required that it pay monetary damages to plaintiff
and appellant Zahra Gharraee (Gharraee). Gharraee filed a motion to dismiss the appeal
contending that Trader Joe’s appeal was untimely. Trader Joe’s disagrees and argues that
the notice of appeal was timely because it was submitted to the superior court clerk for
filing before the jurisdictional deadline. We conclude that the appeal was timely filed
and deny Gharraee’s motion to dismiss.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On October 3, 2025, a Stanislaus County Superior Court jury returned a verdict
finding Trader Joe’s negligent and that its negligence was a substantial factor in causing
harm to Gharraee. The jury awarded Gharraee damages of $23,509,165. The superior
court entered judgment on October 8, 2025.
On October 29, 2025, Trader Joe’s filed a notice of intention to move for new trial.
On December 16, 2025, the superior court conditionally granted the motion for a new
trial unless Gharraee agreed to accept a reduced award of $10,809,165 no later than
December 19, 2025. Gharraee accepted the reduced award on December 19, 2025, by her
notice of consent to remittitur (Notice of Consent), which she filed and served on counsel
for Trader Joe’s that day. The superior court entered an amended judgment in the amount
of the reduced award on December 19, 2025.
As explained below, the deadline to file the notice of appeal was January 20, 2026.
On that day, at 5:29 p.m., counsel for Trader Joe’s submitted its notice of appeal for filing
to the superior court and received an e-mail confirmation that it had been submitted for a
clerk’s review.
On January 22, 2026, at approximately 3:01 p.m., a staff member employed by
Trader Joe’s legal counsel received a notification from the superior court’s electronic
filing service provider that the notice of appeal was rejected because “APPEAL
DOCUMENTS CANNOT BE E-FILED.” Ultimately, after several attempts to resubmit
the notice of appeal electronically and in hard copy, the superior court filed the notice of
appeal on February 17, 2026. The notice of appeal the superior court filed appears to be
the same as the document submitted for filing on January 20, 2026.
On February 23, 2026, Gharraee filed the instant motion to dismiss appeal. On
February 26, 2026, Trader Joe’s submitted its opposition to respondent’s motion to
dismiss appeal and motion to deem appeal timely filed, which was filed on March 3,
2026.
2.
DISCUSSION
A. Legal Framework
1. The Statute: Code of Civil Procedure Section 1010.6.
Code of Civil Procedure 1 section 1010.6, subdivision (e) authorizes trial courts to
“adopt local rules permitting electronic filing of documents, subject to rules adopted by
the Judicial Council” and certain conditions. 2 If the trial court adopts such a rule, “[a]ny
document received electronically by the court between 12:00 a.m. and 11:59:59 p.m. on a
court day shall be deemed filed on that court day.” (§ 1010.6, subd. (e)(3).) The court,
its electronic filing service provider, or its electronic filing manager must provide prompt
confirmation of the receipt of a document submitted for filing that indicates the date and
time of receipt to the party who submitted the document. (§ 1010.6, subd. (e)(4)(A).) If
the submitted document complies with filing requirements and filing fees have been paid,
the court is required to promptly send a confirmation to the party who submitted the
document that it has been filed. (§ 1010.6, subd. (e)(4)(B).) If the clerk of the court
rejects a document for filing because it does not comply with applicable filing
requirements or the filing fee has not been paid, the court “shall promptly send notice of
the rejection of the document for filing to the party or person who submitted the
document … [which] state[s] the reasons that the document was rejected for filing.”
(§ 1010.6, subd. (e)(4)(C).)
The Judicial Council is required to adopt rules governing the electronic filing and
service of documents in the trial courts. (§ 1010.6, subd. (h).) Those rules are found at
California Rules of Court 3, rules 2.250 through 2.261, and are discussed below.
1 All further undesignated statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.
2 Section 1010.6, subdivision (g) authorizes trial courts to “require electronic filing
in civil actions” subject to the conditions applicable to permissible electronic filing
authorized by subdivision (e) and certain additional requirements.
3 All further undesignated rule references are to the California Rules of Court.
3.
2. Rules 2.250–2.261
As a general principle of construction, the rules “must be construed to authorize
and permit filing and service by electronic means to the extent feasible.” (Rule 2.250(a).)
Among other things, those rules authorize trial courts to adopt permissive electronic
filing or mandatory electronic filing of documents. (Rule 2.253(a)–(b).) If a trial court
opts for mandatory electronic filing, it may require such mandatory filing in one or more
of the following:
“(A) All civil cases;
“(B) All civil cases of a specific category, such as unlimited or limited civil
cases;
“(C) All civil cases of a specific case type, including but not limited to,
contract, collections, personal injury, or employment;
“(D) All civil cases assigned to a judge for all purposes;
“(E) All civil cases assigned to a specific department, courtroom or
courthouse;
“(F) Any class actions, consolidated actions, or group of actions,
coordinated actions, or actions that are complex under rule 3.403; or
“(G) Any combination of the cases described in subparagraphs (A) to (F),
inclusive.” (Rule 2.253(b)(1).)
If a particular document cannot feasibly be converted to electronic form, a court
may allow the party seeking to file that document to do so in paper form. (Rule
2.252(d).) “The effective date of filing any document received electronically is
prescribed by … section 1010.6.” (Rule 2.253(b)(6).)
3. Stanislaus County Superior Court, Local Rules, rule 1.14 4
4 All further undesignated local rule references are to the Stanislaus County
Superior Court Local Rules.
4.
Stanislaus County Superior Court, Local Rules, rule 1.14(A)(2) 5 provides that all
documents “presented for filing [in civil cases, among others] must be electronically
filed,” except as provided in subdivisions (G) and (H). Subdivision (G) refers the reader
to the court’s website for “a complete list of documents which cannot be electronically
filed,” and subdivision (H) imposes certain formatting requirements and grants the court
authority to impose various “sanctions” for noncompliance with formatting requirements.
Only subdivision (G) is at issue in the motion to dismiss.
On the court’s website, under the “Forms & Filing” tab, an “E-Filing” page has a
section titled “Exceptions,” which states in pertinent part that:
“The following documents CANNOT be accepted via E-Filing at this time:
Appeals [¶] Notice of Appeal (ALL case types) - Appellate
Division and Court of Appeal Notices) [¶] Any/All appeal-related
documents (ALL case types)” (Stanislaus County Superior Court
<https://www.stanislaus.courts.ca.gov/forms-filing/e-filing> [as of Aug. 5,
2026] archived at <https://perma.cc/J4DL-LUTG>). 6
The court’s website lists multiple other types of documents arising in “civil
matters”, among others, that are ineligible for electronic filing. (Ibid.)
B. Parties’ Arguments
On April 23, 2026, we ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs addressing
the following five questions:
5 In their supplemental briefs filed in response to our April 23, 2026 order,
discussed below, the parties agree that we should take judicial notice of this local rule of
the superior court. We agree and do so pursuant to Evidence Code section 452,
subdivision (e), which permits this court to take judicial notice of “[r]ules of court of (1)
any court of this state.”
6 In their supplemental briefs filed in response to our April 23, 2026 order,
discussed below, the parties agree that we should take judicial notice of the superior
court’s webpage that specifies which documents cannot be filed electronically. We agree
and do so pursuant to Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (c), which permits this
court to take judicial notice of “[o]fficial acts of the … judicial department[] of … any
state of the United States.”
5.
“1. Whether this court should take judicial notice of Stanislaus County
Superior Court local rule … 1.14 and the Superior Court’s webpage that
specifies which documents cannot be filed electronically.
“2. Whether local rule 1.14, which mandates electronic filing, excluding
notices of appeal and other “appeal-related documents” among other
documents, is inconsistent with [California Rules of Court,] rule 2.253.
“3. If it is inconsistent, should this court invalidate it?
“4. If so, what effect, if any, would this court’s invalidation of local rule
1.14 have on the timeliness of the filing of defendant-appellant’s notice
of appeal?
“5. Assuming that local rule 1.14 is consistent with rule 2.253, does
Code of Civil Procedure section 575.2 apply to [Trader Joe’s] failure to
comply with local rule 1.14? If it applies, what effect, if any, does
section 575.2 have on the motion to dismiss the appeal as untimely and
the motion to deem the appeal timely filed?”
On April 30, 2026, Gharraee filed her supplemental brief. On May 29, 2026,
Trader Joe’s filed its supplemental brief.
Gharraee contends that we lack jurisdiction to hear this appeal because the notice
of appeal was filed after the jurisdictional deadline. Gharraee explains that the triggering
date for the filing of the notice of appeal was October 8, 2025, the date of service of the
notice of entry of judgment. The original deadline to file the notice of appeal was 60
days thereafter, or December 8, 2025. The original deadline was extended by operation
of rule 8.108(b)(2)(A) to January 20, 2026. Trader Joe’s notice of appeal was filed on
February 17, 2026, after the jurisdictional deadline expired.
In response to our supplemental briefing order, Gharraee argues that local rule
1.14 is “not inconsistent with California Rules of Court, rule 2.253,” and “represents a
valid and contemplated exercise of the authority delegated to trial courts to implement
electronic filing systems under the statewide e-filing scheme.” 7 Further, Gharraee argues
7 Because Gharraee contends that local rule 1.14 is consistent with Cal. Rules of
Court, rule 2.253, she maintains that we should not invalidate it.
6.
that “[n]othing in the text or legislative history of section 575.2, suggests any intent to
affect appellate deadlines” and it “has no effect on the timeliness of the notice of appeal
or on the pending motions.”
In its opposition to the motion to dismiss, Trader Joe’s argues that (1) it tendered
the notice of appeal for filing within the jurisdictional time period, (2) the clerk of the
superior court’s rejection of the notice of appeal did not negate its timely delivery to the
clerk, (3) Trader Joe’s acted diligently at every stage, (4) there has been no prejudice to
Gharraee, (5) the clerk wrongfully rejected the notice of appeal, and (6) the trial court’s
refusal to file the notice of appeal electronically was inconsistent with statute and Judicial
Council rules.
In its supplemental brief, Trader Joe’s argues that subdivision (G) of local rule
1.14 is inconsistent with rule 2.253, at least as applied to the notice of appeal that it filed.
More specifically, Trader Joe’s argues that subdivision (G) of local rule 1.14 “is
unenforceable to the extent that it authorized the clerk to reject a timely received notice
of appeal based solely on a website-based e-filing exclusion.” (Boldface omitted.) More
broadly, “subdivision (G) is also defective because the operative exclusion was never
adopted as a local rule and because rule 2.253 authorizes implementation by case type,
not categorical document exclusions.” (Boldface omitted.)
Trader Joe’s suggests that relief could be in the form of (1) declining to enforce
local rule 1.14 as applied to its notice of appeal, (2) invalidating the local rule’s
exclusions of certain documents from being filed electronically because those exclusions
were not adopted as local rules, or (3) invalidating subdivision (G) itself because the
document exclusions it describes are not authorized under Cal. Rules of Court, rule
2.253. Trader Joe’s argues that the court’s invalidation or nonenforcement of local rule
1.14 would confirm that its notice of appeal was timely filed. Finally, Trader Joe’s
argues that even if this court finds that local rule 1.14 is consistent with Cal. Rules of
7.
Court, rule 2.253, section 575.2 applies to its attorney’s failure to comply with local rule
1.14 by foreclosing dismissal of its appeal as a sanction.
C. Legal Analysis
1. The Jurisdictional Deadline for Filing the Notice of Appeal.
i. The right to appeal is statutory and deadline is jurisdictional.
“The right to appeal is wholly statutory.” (Dana Point Safe Harbor Collective v.
Superior Court (2010) 51 Cal.4th 1, 5; Pacific Gas Radiator Co. v. Superior Court of Los
Angeles County (1924) 70 Cal.App. 200, 202 [“[a]ppeals have no existence at common
law, and any right of appeal must be based upon some provision of the [C]onstitution or
of the statute”].) Appeals in civil cases are governed by the provisions of part 2, title 13
of sections 901–923. (§ 901.) Section 901 authorizes the Judicial Council to “prescribe
rules for the practice and procedure on appeal” that are “not inconsistent” with title 13.
Chapter 2 of division 1 of title 8 of the California Rules of Court applies to civil
appeals. To initiate an appeal of a superior court judgment or order, “an appellant must
serve and file a notice of appeal in that superior court,” pay a filing fee or apply for a
waiver of fees and costs, and submit a monetary deposit unless the superior court waives
it. (Rule 8.100(a)(1), (b)(1)–(2).) The superior court clerk is required to file the notice of
appeal, even if the appellant fails to pay the fee, deposit, or submit the application to
waive fees and costs. 8 (Rule 8.100(b)(3).)
Subject to certain narrow exceptions, the deadline to file 9 a notice of appeal in a
civil case is the earliest of (a) 60 days after the superior court clerk serves on the
8 An appellant who fails to pay fees and costs or submit an application for waiver
must remedy this failure within the timelines set forth in rule 8.100 or suffer dismissal of
the appeal unless good cause is shown. (Rule 8.100(c)(3), and (d)(3).)
9 “A document is ‘filed’ when it is actually delivered to the clerk of the court during
office hours, even if the clerk erroneously refuses to file it.” (Eliceche v. Federal Land
Bank Assn. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1349, 1361; accord United Farm Workers of America
v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. (1985) 37 Cal.3d 912, 918 [“ ‘filing’ for purposes of
compliance with the [jurisdictional time limit] means what it does in all other contexts:
8.
appellant a notice of entry of judgment or a filed-endorsed copy of the judgment showing
the date it was served; or (b) 60 days after a party serves a notice of entry of judgment or
a filed-endorsed copy of the judgment, accompanied by a proof of service, or (c) 180
days after entry of judgment. (Rule 8.104(a)(1)(A)–(C).) A notice of appeal filed after
the deadline must be dismissed by the reviewing court. (Rule 8.104(b).) “This time limit
is jurisdictional: ‘no court may extend the time to file a notice of appeal’ (rule 8.104(b)),
and relief cannot be conferred by stipulation, waiver, or estoppel.” (Meinhardt v. City of
Sunnyvale (2024) 16 Cal.5th 643, 649.)
In certain circumstances a motion for new trial can result in an extension of time
to file a notice of appeal. Under section 657, a party may move for new trial based on the
award of excessive or inadequate damages. (§ 657, subd. (5).) If the trial court finds that
the damages were excessive or inadequate, it may give the non-moving party a choice to
consent to an adjusted damages award or the motion will be granted. (§ 662.5, subd. (a).)
If the non-moving party consents, the motion for new trial is denied and an amended
judgment is entered. (See, e.g., Pearl v. City of Los Angeles (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 475,
477–478 [plaintiff consented to remittitur, trial court denied new trial motion and entered
judgment in the reduced amount]; Boeken v. Philip Morris, Inc. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th
1640, 1650 [trial court conditionally granted new trial motion on the issue of punitive
damages, subject to a condition that if plaintiff consented to a reduction in the amount of
punitive damages the motion would be denied, and following the plaintiff’s consent to a
reduced punitive damages award, the trial court entered an amended judgment].) If this
occurs, the time for any party to file a notice of appeal is 30 days from the service of the
party’s consent to the adjusted judgment amount. (Rule 8.108(b)(2)(A).)
actual delivery of the petition to the clerk at his place of business during office hours.”];
Rapp v. Golden Eagle Ins. Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1167, 1172 [“[t]he act of delivering
the document to the deputy clerk at the court during office hours constituted the act of
filing.”]; Pangilinan v. Palisoc (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 765, 770 [same].)
9.
ii. The Deadline to File the Notice of Appeal was Tuesday, January 20,
2026.
In their respective briefing on the motion to dismiss, the parties agree that the
deadline to file a notice of appeal in this case was Tuesday, January 20, 2026. We
concur.
As noted above, the trial court granted a motion for new trial on the issue of
damages, subject to a condition that if Gharraee consented to a reduction in the damages
award on or before December 19, 2025, the motion would be denied. Gharraee served
her notice of consent on Friday, December 19, 2025. As a result, the deadline to appeal
was extended to 30 days thereafter. The 30th day fell on Sunday, January 18, 2026.
Both that day and the next day — the third Monday in January, and the day we honor the
birth of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. — are judicial holidays on which courts are not open
to receive filings. (Code Civ. Proc., § 135; Gov. Code, § 6700, subd. (a)(1), (3).) As a
result, the time to file the notice of appeal is extended to and including the next day that
is not a holiday. (§ 12a; rule 1.10(b).) Therefore, the last day to file a notice of appeal in
this case was Tuesday, January 20, 2026.
2. Local Rule 1.14 Is Inconsistent with State Law and Invalid.
i. Local Rules Must Be Consistent with State Law.
Courts are authorized to make rules to administer their operations and officers
provided that such rules are not inconsistent with the law or rules adopted by the Judicial
Council. (Gov. Code, § 68070, subd. (a).) Such rules are procedural in nature. (Shipp v.
Superior Court (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 147, 151.) These rules are typically called
“ ‘[l]ocal rules’ ” and include “every rule, regulation, order, policy, form, or standard of
general application adopted by a court to govern practice or procedure in that court or by
a judge of the court to govern practice or procedure in that judge’s courtroom.” (Rule
10.613(a)(2).)
10.
Where a local rule is inconsistent with higher law, including the constitution,
statute, case law, or the rules of court, reviewing courts will “not hesitate[]” to strike
them down. (Elkins v. Superior Court (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1337, 1352; Cortez v. Bootsma
(1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 935, 938 [“[a]ny conflict between a local rule and a state statute
invalidates the local rule”]; Hall v. Superior Court (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 908, 916
[“even properly adopted local rules are only valid to the extent they do not conflict with
existing law or the California Rules of Court.”]) “A common theme” in such cases, “is
that a local court has advanced the goals of efficiency and conservation of judicial
resources by adopting procedures that deviated from those established by statute, thereby
impairing the countervailing interests of litigants as well as the interest of the public in
being afforded access to justice, resolution of a controversy on the merits, and a fair
proceeding.” (Elkins, at p. 1353.)
Courts have invalidated local rules in a variety of circumstances. In Turlock Golf
& Country Club v. Superior Court (1966) 240 Cal.App.2d 693, 694–695, 699–701, this
court found that a local rule that required the deposit of fees and costs in excess of the
amount required by state statute was inconsistent with that statute and therefore invalid.
Appellate courts have invalidated local rules that are inconsistent with rules of procedure
established for summary judgment proceedings. (Lokeijak v. City of Irvine (1998) 65
Cal.App.4th 341, 344 [local policy of the Orange County Superior Court that encouraged
an alternative to a summary judgment motion conflicted with section 437c and was
therefore invalid]; Thatcher v. Lucky Stores, Inc. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1081, 1086
[local rule authorizing trial court to grant summary judgment based on the absence of
opposition was invalid].)
Courts have also invalidated local rules that conflict with California Rules of
Court adopted by the Judicial Council. In In re Marriage of Sharples (2014) 223
Cal.App.4th 160, the superior court denied a wife’s motion for an order requiring that her
husband pay her attorney’s fees and costs during dissolution proceedings. (Id. at p. 163.)
11.
The court denied the motion because the wife failed to file a Judicial Council form which
the court found was mandatory. (Ibid.) The Court of Appeal concluded that to the extent
the local rule could be interpreted to require that a particular Judicial Council form be
used, the local rule was invalid. (Id. at p. 167.) The Court of Appeal explained that the
applicable rule of court required that certain information be provided by the party seeking
fees and costs but made use of the Judicial Council form optional. (Id. at pp. 166–167.)
“[T]o the extent the local rule could be construed as requiring a party to file [the Judicial
Council form] to support a request for attorney fees and costs … it was in conflict with
the California Rules of Court and therefore invalid.” (Id. at p. 167.)
Further, courts have held that a litigant’s failure to comply with a local rule is not
a valid basis for the court to refuse to file a document which has a jurisdictional deadline,
such as a complaint. (Rojas v. Cutsforth (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 774, 777–778 [Court of
Appeal deemed complaint timely filed where complaint was submitted to the clerk within
the jurisdictional deadline notwithstanding plaintiff’s imperfect compliance with local
rules regarding completion of documents to be filed with the complaint].)
In Carlson v. Department of Fish & Game (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1268 (Carlson),
plaintiff Carlson hired an out-of-county attorney to file a lawsuit on his behalf in Los
Angeles County. (Id. at p. 1270.) The attorney transmitted the complaint to the superior
court by Federal Express. (Ibid.) The complaint complied with the formatting
requirements of the California Rules of Court and was received by the court prior to the
expiration of the statute of limitations but was rejected for filing because it was not
accompanied by a form required by a local rule. (Ibid.)
On appeal, division 2 of the Second District Court of Appeal held that the superior
court “may not condition the filing of a complaint on local rule requirements.” (Carlson,
supra,.) The court explained “that the only ‘proper basis’ on which a clerk can refuse to
file a complaint is lack of compliance with [former] rule 201.” (Id. at p. 1276, fn. 7.) As
12.
the Court of Appeal explained, however, the trial court is not without remedy for a
litigant who fails to comply with its local rules:
“The conclusion that a clerk lacks authority to enforce the [superior
court’s] local rules by rejecting papers that comply with [former] rule 201
does not mean that those local rules cannot be enforced. It simply means
that they cannot be enforced by the method of rejecting filings which
conform to state law. After a paper is filed, the panoply of possible
sanctions provided for in section 575.2, [former] rule 227 and elsewhere
become available to redress local rule violations. However, applying a
sanction of the type authorized by the Code of Civil Procedure and the
Rules is far different from rejecting a conforming paper and possibly
causing the statute of limitations to run.” (Carlson, supra, 68 Cal.App.4th
at pp. 1281–1282.)
3. Local Rule 1.14, Subdivision (G) is Inconsistent with State Law and is
Therefore Invalid.
Rule 2.253(b)(1) authorizes superior courts to mandate electronic filing in civil
cases but requires that the resulting local rule specify “the types or categories of civil
actions in which parties … are required to file … documents electronically.” It does not
authorize the superior court to adopt a local rule that mandates electronic filing in civil
cases except for particular documents or categories of documents. This, however, is what
local rule 1.14, subdivision (G) does. The inconsistency between the rule and local rule
is readily apparent. For that reason, we find that local rule 1.14, subdivision (G) is
inconsistent with rule 2.253 and therefore invalid. 10
Moreover, like the complaint at issue in Carlson, Trader Joe’s failure to comply
with the superior court’s local rule was not a valid basis to refuse to acknowledge the
effective date of filing of the notice of appeal as the date it was originally received
electronically. There is no evidence that the notice of appeal itself failed to comply with
the filing requirements of rule 2.100 et seq., as evidenced by the fact that the superior
10 Because we determine that local rule 1.14 is inconsistent with state law, we do not
reach the issue of whether section 575.2 applies to Trader Joe’s failure to comply with
local rule 1.14.
13.
court eventually accepted it as filed on February 17, 2026, in the same form in which it
was originally received by the superior court clerk on January 20, 2026.
The effective date of filing of the notice of appeal submitted by Trader Joe’s was
the date it was originally received by the superior court clerk–January 20, 2026.
(§ 1010.6, subd. (e)(3); rule 2.253(b)(6); see also rule 1.20 [“[u]nless otherwise provided,
a document is deemed filed on the date it is received by the court clerk”].) As a result,
the notice of appeal was filed timely.
DISPOSITION
The motion to dismiss is denied.
FRANSON, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
SNAUFFER, J.
DE SANTOS, J.
14.