Judge Thomas D. Long, Case 22STCV26477 2022-09-19 Tentative Ruling

On August 15, 2022, Plaintiffs Jane Doe 7051 and Elizabeth Ringer filed this action against Doe 1 (a public entity) and Doe 2 (an individual), arising from childhood sexual assault. On September 14, 2022, Plaintiffs filed an ex parte application to approve the certificates of merit and permit service, permit amendment of the complaint to name the defendants, and seal the certificates of merit and certificate of corroborative facts.

A plaintiff who is 40 years of age or older in an action arising from childhood sexual assault must file a certificate of corroborative fact and certificates of merit executed by the attorney for the plaintiff and by a licensed mental health practitioner selected by the plaintiff, and the court must review them in camera. (Code Civ. Proc., § 340.1, subds. (f)-(g), (i), (n).)

Because records examined in camera must be filed under seal (California Rules of Court, rule 2.585(b)) and the Court must keep all certificates of corroborative fact under seal (Code Civ. Proc., § 340.1, subd. (o)), the request to seal Plaintiff’s Certificates of Merit and Certificate of Corroborative Facts is granted.

A defendant may not be served until the court has reviewed the certificates of merit in camera and found, based solely on those certificates of merit, that there is reasonable and meritorious cause for the filing of the action against that defendant. (Code Civ. Proc., § 340.1, subd. (i).)

Plaintiffs’ counsel has executed a separate Certificate of Merit for each named defendant, and these Certificates of Merit comply with the requirements. (Code Civ. Proc., § 340.1, subd. (g)-(h).)

Jane Doe 7051’s and Elizabeth Ringer’s Certificates of Merit from licensed mental health practitioners comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1, subdivision (g).

The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs’ Certificates of Merit and finds that there is reasonable and meritorious cause for the filing of the action against Doe 1 and Doe 2. Accordingly, the request for permission to serve Doe 1 and Doe 2 is granted.

A defendant must be named “Doe” in all pleadings and filings until there has been a showing of corroborative fact as to the charging allegations against that defendant. (Code Civ. Proc., § 340.1, subd. (l).) An application must include a certificate of corroborative fact executed by the plaintiff’s counsel declaring that the attorney has discovered one or more facts corroborative of one or more of the charging allegations against a defendant or defendants and setting forth the nature and substance of the corroborative fact. (Code Civ. Proc., § 340.1, subd. (m).) The court must review the application and the certificate of corroborative fact in camera. (Code Civ. Proc., § 340.1, subd. (n).) The court must order that the complaint may be amended to substitute the name of the defendant if, based solely on the certificate and any reasonable inferences to be drawn from the certificate, one or more corroborative facts of one or more of the charging allegations has been shown. (Ibid.)

The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs’ Certificate of Corroborated Facts and finds that one or more corroborative facts of one or more of the charging allegations has been shown. Accordingly, the request to file an amended complaint substituting the names of Doe 1 and Doe 2 is granted.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit. Parties intending to appear are encouraged to appear remotely and should be prepared to comply with Dept. 48’s new requirement that those attending court in person wear a surgical or N95 or KN95 mask.

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court