Curtis Eng'g Corp. v. Superior Court of San Diego Cnty.

Good Law
16 Cal. App. 5th 542·2017 Cal. App. LEXIS 920·225 Cal. Rptr. 3d 702·2017 WL 4769086
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 23, 2017D072046California3,663 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Nares, J.

*545 Code of Civil Procedure 1 section 411.35 requires the attorney for plaintiffs or cross-complainants in certain professional negligence cases to serve and file a certificate on the defendant or cross-defendant on or before the date of service of the complaint or cross-complaint declaring that he or she has consulted with and received an opinion from an expert in the field, or an adequate excuse for not doing so. ( §§ 411.35, subd. (a), (b).) In this case, we conclude that a certificate filed after expiration of the statute of limitations and more than 60 days after filing the original pleading ( § 411.35, subd. (b)(2) ) does not relate back to the filing of the original pleading. The trial court erred when it overruled a demurrer alleging noncompliance with the certificate requirement of section 411.35. Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of mandate.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On May 5, 2014, plaintiff George R. Sutherland, while working as a crane operator, sustained injuries when his crane tipped over. On May 3, 2016, 2 Sutherland filed his original complaint, which included a negligence cause of action against real party in interest, Curtis Engineering…

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.