Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
15 California opinions name it 4 courts 2004–2025 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Jackson v. Doegreen2 sentences2017The purpose of the certificate of merit requirement is to reduce the filing of frivolous claims by imposing a pleading hurdle. ( Jackson v. Doe (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 742 , 752, 121 Cal.Rptr.3d 685 ( Jackson ).) Subdivision (q) of section 340.1 includes the provision's only reference to attorney fees. 2017The purpose of the certificate of merit requirement is to reduce the filing of frivolous claims by imposing a pleading hurdle. ( Jackson v. Doe (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 742 , 752, 121 Cal.Rptr.3d 685 ( Jackson ).) Subdivision (q) of section 340.1 includes the provision's only reference to attorney fees. | 2 | 5 |
McVeigh v. DOES 1 THROUGH 3green2 sentences2017McVeigh addressed the certificate of merit requirement for victims of childhood sexual abuse 26 years of age or older when the action is filed. (§ 340.1, subd. (g).) In a provision virtually identical to that contained in section 411.35(b)(2), section 340.1 allows a plaintiff to file an excuse certificate "within 60 days after filing the complaint." ( § 340.1, subd. (h)(3).) 4 The plaintiff in McVeigh timely filed his complaint within the applicable statute of limitations period, but without the required certificates of merit from an attorney and mental health practitioner. ( McVeigh , supra , 2017McVeigh addressed the certificate of merit requirement for victims of childhood sexual abuse 26 years of age or older when the action is filed. (§ 340.1, subd. (g).) In a provision virtually identical to that contained in section 411.35(b)(2), section 340.1 allows a plaintiff to file an excuse certificate "within 60 days after filing the complaint." ( § 340.1, subd. (h)(3).) 4 The plaintiff in McVeigh timely filed his complaint within the applicable statute of limitations period, but without the required certificates of merit from an attorney and mental health practitioner. ( McVeigh , supra , | 1 | 4 |
People v. Greg F.green2 sentences2025Policy considerations “In interpreting a statute, courts are obligated to ‘adopt a common sense construction over one leading to mischief or absurdity.’ [Citation.]” (In re Greg F. (2012) 55 Cal.4th 393, 410 .) Here, the superior court premised its refusal to allow S.C. to amend the factual allegations of the complaint pursuant to section 473, subdivision (a)(1) on the certificates-of-merit requirement’s function as “a procedural safeguard against unmeritorious cases.” The court’s handling of this requirement not only lacks support in the statutory text but also produces “absurd and unreasonab 2015(In re Greg F. (2012) 55 Cal.4th 393, 407 [ 146 Cal.Rptr.3d 272 , 283 P.3d 1160 ] [“The Legislature is presumed to be aware of all laws in existence when it passes or amends a statute.”].) Accordingly, the Legislature broadly worded the certificate of merit requirement to apply to every plaintiff over 26 years old. | 1 | 2 |
PD Doe v. San Diego-Imperial Councilgreen2 sentences2025Policy considerations “In interpreting a statute, courts are obligated to ‘adopt a common sense construction over one leading to mischief or absurdity.’ [Citation.]” (In re Greg F. (2012) 55 Cal.4th 393, 410 .) Here, the superior court premised its refusal to allow S.C. to amend the factual allegations of the complaint pursuant to section 473, subdivision (a)(1) on the certificates-of-merit requirement’s function as “a procedural safeguard against unmeritorious cases.” The court’s handling of this requirement not only lacks support in the statutory text but also produces “absurd and unreasonab 2024Proc.,1 § 340.1, subds. (f) & (g); Doe v. San Diego-Imperial Council (2017) 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure. 16 Cal.App.5th 301, 307 [“The purpose of the certificate of merit requirement is to reduce the filing of frivolous claims by imposing a pleading hurdle.”].) The trial court found Doe’s certificates deficient and directed him to “correct the deficiencies” within 30 days. | 1 | 2 |
Doyle v. Fenstergreen2 sentences2017The McVeigh court addressed Doyle v. Fenster (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1701 , 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 327 ( Doyle ) a case that the trial court found to be distinguishable. 2017The McVeigh court addressed Doyle v. Fenster (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1701 , 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 327 ( Doyle ) a case that the trial court found to be distinguishable. | 1 | 2 |
Abramson v. Juniper Networks, Inc.green2 sentences2015(Abramson v. Juniper Networks, Inc. (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 638, 660-661 [ 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 422 ].) Doe correctly notes that Respondents waited until the second round of pleading challenges to raise the missing certificates of merit; however, we fail to see how this assists him. 2015(Abramson v. Juniper Networks, Inc. (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 638, 660-661 [ 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 422 ].) Doe correctly notes that Respondents waited until the second round of pleading challenges to raise the missing certificates of merit; however, we fail to see how this assists him. | 1 | 1 |
Silverbrand v. County of Los Angelesgreen2 sentences2015(Doe v. Doe 1, at p. 1187.) Doe v. Doe 1 held that Insurance Code section 11583 tolling applied to section 340.1; it did not address the certificate of merit requirement. “ ‘ “It is axiomatic that cases are not authority for propositions not considered.” ’ ” (Silverbrand v. County of Los Angeles (2009) 46 Cal.4th 106, 127 [ 92 Cal.Rptr.3d 595 , 205 P.3d 1047 ].) The exception to the principle of retroactivity is inapplicable where, as here, a court is deciding a legal question in the first instance, rather than overturning prior appellate decisions. 2015(Doe v. Doe 1, at p. 1187.) Doe v. Doe 1 held that Insurance Code section 11583 tolling applied to section 340.1; it did not address the certificate of merit requirement. “ ‘ “It is axiomatic that cases are not authority for propositions not considered.” ’ ” (Silverbrand v. County of Los Angeles (2009) 46 Cal.4th 106, 127 [ 92 Cal.Rptr.3d 595 , 205 P.3d 1047 ].) The exception to the principle of retroactivity is inapplicable where, as here, a court is deciding a legal question in the first instance, rather than overturning prior appellate decisions. | 1 | 1 |
Elsner v. Uvegesgreen2 sentences2015(Elsner v. Uveges (2004) 34 Cal.4th 915, 934, fn. 19 [ 22 Cal.Rptr.3d 530 , 102 P.3d 915 ] [The California Supreme Court has “routinely found enrolled bill reports, prepared by a responsible agency contemporaneous with passage and before signing, instructive on matters of legislative intent.”].) Had the Legislature intended the certificate of merit requirement to apply only where a plaintiff relies on the delayed discovery rule, it could have drafted section 340.1(g) to read: every plaintiff 26 years of age or older at the time the action is filed and relying on the delayed discovery provision 2015(Elsner v. Uveges (2004) 34 Cal.4th 915, 934, fn. 19 [ 22 Cal.Rptr.3d 530 , 102 P.3d 915 ] [The California Supreme Court has “routinely found enrolled bill reports, prepared by a responsible agency contemporaneous with passage and before signing, instructive on matters of legislative intent.”].) Had the Legislature intended the certificate of merit requirement to apply only where a plaintiff relies on the delayed discovery rule, it could have drafted section 340.1(g) to read: every plaintiff 26 years of age or older at the time the action is filed and relying on the delayed discovery provision | 1 | 1 |
Shirk v. Vista Unified School Districtred2 sentences2015(Quarry, at p. 963.) As the Quarry court noted, the amendment “created its own statutory delayed discovery rule.” (Ibid., italics omitted.) *87 At this time, the Legislature also added a certificate of merit requirement as follows: “Every plaintiff 26 years of age or older at the time the action is filed shall file certificates of merit as specified in subdivision (h).” (§ 340.1(g); see Shirk v. Vista Unified School Dist. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 201, 207 [ 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 210 , 164 P.3d 630 ].) “The legislative materials indicate that the purpose of the certificates of merit requirements is to impose 2015(Quarry, at p. 963.) As the Quarry court noted, the amendment “created its own statutory delayed discovery rule.” (Ibid., italics omitted.) *87 At this time, the Legislature also added a certificate of merit requirement as follows: “Every plaintiff 26 years of age or older at the time the action is filed shall file certificates of merit as specified in subdivision (h).” (§ 340.1(g); see Shirk v. Vista Unified School Dist. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 201, 207 [ 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 210 , 164 P.3d 630 ].) “The legislative materials indicate that the purpose of the certificates of merit requirements is to impose | 1 | 1 |
DiPIRRO v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc.green2 sentences2014While Proposition 65 allows for private enforcement, “public suits are preferred,” and the certificate of merit requirement is “designed to discourage frivolous suits.” (DiPirro v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc. (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 966, 974 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.3d 787 ].) “[Certificates of merit discourage groundless, bad faith, frivolous suits in two ways. 2014While Proposition 65 allows for private enforcement, “public suits are preferred,” and the certificate of merit requirement is “designed to discourage frivolous suits.” (DiPirro v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc. (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 966, 974 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.3d 787 ].) “[Certificates of merit discourage groundless, bad faith, frivolous suits in two ways. | 1 | 1 |
Yeroushalmi v. Miramar Sheratongreen2 sentences2004(Yeroushalmi v. Miramar Sheraton (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 738, 750 [ 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 332 ].) A private enforcer must notify the public prosecutor before filing suit and may not file if that prosecutor files its own claim for the same violation before the 60-day postnotice period elapses. (§ 25249.7, subd. (d)(2).) Senate Bill No. 471 not only imposed a certificate of merit requirement similar to the one imposed by Code of Civil Procedure section 411.35, it also required the private enforcer to provide to the Attorney General “[f] actual information sufficient to establish the basis of the certifi 2004(Yeroushalmi v. Miramar Sheraton (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 738, 750 [ 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 332 ].) A private enforcer must notify the public prosecutor before filing suit and may not file if that prosecutor files its own claim for the same violation before the 60-day postnotice period elapses. (§ 25249.7, subd. (d)(2).) Senate Bill No. 471 not only imposed a certificate of merit requirement similar to the one imposed by Code of Civil Procedure section 411.35, it also required the private enforcer to provide to the Attorney General “[f] actual information sufficient to establish the basis of the certifi | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Doe v. San Diego Imperial Council
green
2 sentences2024Every plaintiff age 40 or older when an action for childhood sexual assault is filed must file certificates of merit executed by the attorney for the plaintiff and by a licensed mental health practitioner selected by the plaintiff.4 (§ 340.1, subds. (f) & (g).) The attorney’s certificate must affirm that the attorney has reviewed the case facts, consulted with a mental health practitioner who he or she believes is knowledgeable of the facts and issues of the action, and concluded that there is “reasonable and meritorious cause for the filing of the action.” (§ 340.1, subd. (g)(1).) The license 2017In fact, in our prior opinion in this matter, this court noted that a dismissal on the basis of a failure to comply with the certificate of merit requirement does not necessarily indicate that a plaintiff's claims are without merit: "Even where plaintiffs may have meritorious claims, their failure to comply with the certificate of merit requirement prevents them from prosecuting their claims." ( Doe I , supra , 239 Cal.App.4th at p. 87 , 190 Cal.Rptr.3d 755 .) Here, there is no indication in the record that the merits of Doe's claims were considered at all, or that the sustaining of the demurr | 3 | 2017–2024 |
Guinn v. Dotson
green
2 sentences2017(See Guinn , supra , 23 Cal.App.4th at pp. 265-266, 28 Cal.Rptr.2d 409 .) 4 In Guinn , the court sustained the defendant's demurrer without leave to amend due to the plaintiffs' failure to file proper certificate of merit. ( Guinn , supra , 23 Cal.App.4th p. 266, 28 Cal.Rptr.2d 409 .) The court subsequently awarded the defendant attorney fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 411.35. 2017(See Guinn , supra , 23 Cal.App.4th at pp. 265-266, 28 Cal.Rptr.2d 409 .) 4 In Guinn , the court sustained the defendant's demurrer without leave to amend due to the plaintiffs' failure to file proper certificate of merit. ( Guinn , supra , 23 Cal.App.4th p. 266, 28 Cal.Rptr.2d 409 .) The court subsequently awarded the defendant attorney fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 411.35. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Riverside County Sheriff's Department v. Stiglitz
green
2 sentences2017As a result, the Guinn court had no opportunity to consider whether the attorney fee provision in Code of Civil Procedure section 411.35 permitted an award of attorney fees regardless of whether the defendant obtained a favorable conclusion in the action. " ' " '[I]t is axiomatic that cases are not authority for propositions not considered.' " ' " ( Riverside County Sheriff's Dept. v. Stiglitz (2014) 60 Cal.4th 624 , 641, 181 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 , 339 P.3d 295 .) In addition, in Guinn , the plaintiffs' attempt to comply with an alternative to the certificate of merit requirement was a sham. 2017As a result, the Guinn court had no opportunity to consider whether the attorney fee provision in Code of Civil Procedure section 411.35 permitted an award of attorney fees regardless of whether the defendant obtained a favorable conclusion in the action. " ' " '[I]t is axiomatic that cases are not authority for propositions not considered.' " ' " ( Riverside County Sheriff's Dept. v. Stiglitz (2014) 60 Cal.4th 624 , 641, 181 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 , 339 P.3d 295 .) In addition, in Guinn , the plaintiffs' attempt to comply with an alternative to the certificate of merit requirement was a sham. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Cummins, Inc. v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2025Former section 340.1’s requirement for certificates of merit does not prohibit motions for leave to amend pursuant to section 473, subdivision (a)(1) In denying S.C.’s motion, the superior court concluded section 473, subdivision (a)(1) does not apply to actions under former section 340.1 “because of the certificate of merit requirement.” Our review of the statute demonstrates this stance is untenable. i. Statutory language “In construing a statute, our task is to ascertain the intent of the Legislature so as to effectuate the purpose of the enactment.” (Cummins, Inc. v. Superior Court (2005) | 1 | 2025–2025 |
California State University, Fresno Ass'n v. County of Fresno
green
1 sentence2025Former section 340.1’s requirement for certificates of merit does not prohibit motions for leave to amend pursuant to section 473, subdivision (a)(1) In denying S.C.’s motion, the superior court concluded section 473, subdivision (a)(1) does not apply to actions under former section 340.1 “because of the certificate of merit requirement.” Our review of the statute demonstrates this stance is untenable. i. Statutory language “In construing a statute, our task is to ascertain the intent of the Legislature so as to effectuate the purpose of the enactment.” (Cummins, Inc. v. Superior Court (2005) | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Price v. Dames & Moore
green
1 sentence2004“The manifest policy of [former] section 411.30 is to require that a plaintiff provide some independent support of the merits of the action before the action is pursued. [The plaintiff] has satisfied [that] policy.” (Strauch, at p. 49.) In Price v. Dames & Moore, supra, 92 Cal.App.4th 355 , the plaintiff filed a professional negligence complaint against a licensed engineer, triggering the certificate of merit requirement in Code of Civil Procedure section 411.35. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.