Court Opinion

ID: 9955882
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-29 17:02:24.231753+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:35.055926
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/29/24 Doe 2826 v. Doe School District CA5

                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

               IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                                       FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

 JOHN DOE 2826,
                                                                                             F086091
           Plaintiff and Appellant,
                                                                             (Super. Ct. No. 22CECG03964)
                    v.

 DOE SCHOOL DISTRICT,                                                                     OPINION
           Defendant and Respondent.

         APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Jonathan M.
Skiles, Judge.
         Matthew & Associates, Pedro de la Cerda; Esner, Chang, Boyer & Murphy,
Holly N. Boyer and Kevin K. Nguyen, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
         No appearance for Defendant and Respondent.
                                                        -ooOoo-
         John Doe filed a childhood sexual assault complaint against a school district.
Because John Doe was more than 40 years old when he filed the complaint, he was
required to, and did, file certificates of merit justifying delay in filing complaint. (Code
Civ. Proc.,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. After Doe filed for reconsideration, but without filing
amended certificates, the trial court dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The court’s
dismissal was on its own motion and, prior to dismissal, there was neither a hearing nor
notice to Doe.
       On appeal, Doe raises several claims2 but we find one dispositive. The trial court
abused its discretion by dismissing the complaint with prejudice while affording Doe no
notice or opportunity to be heard. Accordingly, we vacate the dismissal order and remand
for further proceedings as described in the disposition.
                                     BACKGROUND
       Our background summary is based on the complaint, attendant filings, and
procedural history. No facts have been determined.
       Doe’s childhood-sexual-assault complaint alleges a school district’s employee-
teacher abused him when Doe was a minor student. Consistent with section 340.1, Doe
filed merit certificates to prove to “the court” “there [was] a reasonable and meritorious
cause for the filing of the action ….” (§ 340.1, subds. (e)-(h).)

       2 Principally, Doe marshals Senate Bill No. 558 (2023-2024 Reg. Sess.) (Stats.
2023, ch. 877, § 1) which created section 340.11. Section 340.11 went into effect on
January 1, 2024, and it deletes “the requirement that the relevant certificates of merit set
forth the facts supporting the relevant declarations” in claims—like the ones in this
case—for “sexual assault that occur[s] before January 1, 2024.” (Sen. Rules Com., Off.
of Sen. Floor Analyses, Unfinished Business on Sen. Bill No. 558 (2023-2024 Reg. Sess.)
Sept. 11, 2023, p. 4.) Because we otherwise reverse the trial court’s ruling and remand for
further proceedings, we need not determine whether Senate Bill No. 558 applies
retroactively to nonfinal cases on appeal, nor whether the certificates at issue in this case
satisfy newly created section 340.11—the trial court will so decide in the first instance on
remand.

                                             2.
       The trial court did not, however, find there was a reasonable and meritorious cause
for the filing of the action. Instead, the court found the certificates were “deficient”
because they simply parroted section 340.1. In other words, there were no facts available
for the court to review and decide whether there was indeed a reasonable and meritorious
cause. It provided Doe 30 days to “correct the deficiencies.”
       Within those 30 days, Doe did not correct the deficiencies. Rather, he filed a
nonstatutory “application for reconsideration[.]” After those 30 days, the court invoked
its “inherent right to strike or dismiss a complaint when it [was] clear that the complaint
fail[ed] to state a cause of action,” and dismissed the complaint. It did not address the
reconsideration request.
       Because the court found the statute of limitations had expired, it dismissed the
complaint “with prejudice.” Aside from the ruling finding the merit certificates deficient,
Doe was not informed the court was considering dismissing the complaint, and he was
not afforded an opportunity to be heard prior to dismissal.
                                       DISCUSSION
       Doe argues “the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing [the complaint] with
prejudice[.]” We agree. (See Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern
California (2012) 55 Cal.4th 747, 773 [“A ruling that constitutes an abuse of discretion
has been described as one that is ‘so irrational or arbitrary that no reasonable person
could agree with it.’ ”].)
       In dismissing the complaint with prejudice, the trial court cited its “inherent right
to strike or dismiss a complaint when it is clear that the complaint fails to state a cause of
action.” In other words, it cited no specific statutory authority. (E.g., §§ 436 [court may
“in its discretion” strike a “pleading”]; 438, subd. (b)(2) [“court may upon its own motion
grant a motion for judgment on the pleadings”]; 583.410 [dismissal for “delay”].)

                                              3.
        At the outset, we note section 340.1 “does not provide that failure to file a
certificate requires dismissal.” (Price v. Dames & Moore (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 355,
360.) Section 340.1 itself clearly did not authorize dismissal on the court’s own motion.
        Nonetheless, “[i]n the absence of express statutory authority, a trial court may,
under certain circumstances, invoke its limited, inherent discretionary power to dismiss
claims with prejudice. [Citation.] However, this power has in the past been confined to
two types of situations: (1) the plaintiff has failed to prosecute diligently [citation]; or
(2) the complaint has been shown to be ‘fictitious or sham’ such that the plaintiff has no
valid cause of action[.]” (Lyons v. Wickhorst (1986) 42 Cal.3d 911, 915.) “Neither of
those situations is present here.” (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739,
749.)
        In our view, the trial court in this case “acted hastily and unreasonably.”
(Vaccaro v. Kaiman (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 761, 768.) To its credit, it did provide Doe
the opportunity to file amended certificates. Doe opted, perhaps unwisely, to instead seek
reconsideration. Instead of addressing Doe’s request, the court “immediately dismissed
the action” without “any prior notice it intended to dismiss.” (Id. at pp. 768-769.) That
was an abuse of discretion because there was no reason to believe the complaint was a
sham and Doe’s decision to seek reconsideration was not outrageous—it was arguably
compliant with the court’s order to “correct the deficiencies.” (See 6 Witkin, Cal.
Procedure (2021) Proceedings Without Trial, § 226, p. 711 [dismissal “made without
warning, and without affording an opportunity for argument or amendment, may
constitute a serious abuse of discretion and a violation of due process.”]; cf. Stephen
Slesinger, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co. (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 736, 762 [outrageous conduct
justifies dismissal].) 3

        3 Although not raised on appeal, the trial court might also have abused its
discretion by dismissing with prejudice because it mistakenly believed the statute of
limitations had expired at the time the court dismissed the action. (See Roe v. Doe 1

                                               4.
                                     DISPOSITION
       The February 21, 2023, dismissal order is vacated. On remand, section 340.11
will govern further proceedings. Doe’s request to judicially notice legislative material is
denied.

                                                                            SNAUFFER, J.
WE CONCUR:

LEVY, Acting P. J.

FRANSON, J.

(2023) 98 Cal.App.5th 965.) The trial court ruled “the statute of limitations expired on
January 1, 2023.” We recently held the statute of limitations for childhood sexual assault
claims mirroring this case “did not expire until June 27, 2023[.]” (Id. at p. 973.) Because
the dismissal order in this case was issued on February 21, 2023, it “should have been
without prejudice.” (Ibid.)

                                             5.