Stewart

DISCUSSION

I. NUNC PRO TUNC APPLICATIONS

A. Additional Background On August 31, Stewart attempted to electronically file the complaint initiating this action but the trial court rejected the submission because it did not comply with the court’s e-filing requirements. On September 7, he attempted to file the complaint again, and the court again rejected the filing because the document was not text-searchable. Stewart ultimately succeeded in filing this action on September 19. The court issued the summons on September 29. On October 2, Stewart filed an ex parte application (first application) seeking a nunc pro tunc order that would deem the complaint filed as of August 31, asserting that absent such relief his claims would be time-barred. The trial court denied the application because the defendant had not yet been served. Stewart served USAA with the summons and complaint on October 27. At a hearing, Stewart again sought nunc pro tunc relief (second application), but the court declined to hear the request on an ex parte basis because doing so would have eliminated USAA’s statute of limitations defense. The court instead required Stewart to file a noticed motion. No noticed…