Rubenstein

Rubenstein v. Doe

Good Law
200 Cal. Rptr. 3d 211·2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 211·245 Cal. App. 4th 1037
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 22, 2016D066722California6,325 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

McIntyre, J.

*1043 In this case, we reject the argument that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant a Government Code section 946.6 petition finding that the statutory delayed discovery rule of Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1 applied to delay the accrual date of plaintiff's action for childhood sexual abuse. (Code Civ. Proc., § 340.1, subd. (a).) (Undesignated statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.) We also address a number of issues of first impression regarding the certificate of merit requirement under section 340.1, including that: (1) the certificates are not required to be filed under penalty of perjury; (2) the certificates must contain some facts to allow the trial court to determine there is a reasonable and meritorious cause for filing the action; (3) certificates must be filed as to all named Doe defendants unless the plaintiff invokes section 474 pertaining to lawsuits against fictitiously named defendants; and (4) after filing the complaint and certificates, the plaintiff must file an ex parte application seeking an in camera review of the certificates.

As we shall discuss, the trial court erred in sustaining defendant's demurrer to a complaint…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.