Doe v. San Diego-Imperial Council
D070414
| Cal. Ct. App. | Oct 17, 2017Background
- Plaintiff John P.D. Doe alleged repeated sexual abuse by a Scoutmaster at defendants’ ranch beginning in 1998; Doe later received counseling and sued in 2013.
- Code of Civil Procedure § 340.1(g) requires plaintiffs aged 26 or older at filing to attach certificates of merit; defendants demurred for failure to file them.
- Trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend and entered judgment for defendants; this court affirmed in the prior appeal (Doe I).
- After the appellate remittitur, defendants moved for attorney fees under § 340.1(q) for fees incurred on appeal; the trial court awarded fees without explanation.
- Doe appealed the fee award, arguing § 340.1(q) authorizes fees only where litigation ended favorably on the merits for the defendant; defendants argued dismissal alone makes them eligible.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 340.1(q) authorizes attorney fees when plaintiff failed to file required certificate of merit | § 340.1(q) permits fees only if litigation concluded favorably for defendant in a way that reflects on the merits | Fees are available whenever plaintiff failed to comply and defendant obtained dismissal (i.e., a favorable conclusion) | All sentences in § 340.1(q) read together require a "favorable conclusion" before verifying compliance and awarding fees; fees not automatic upon procedural dismissal |
| What "favorable conclusion" means under § 340.1(q) | Requires a result reflective of the merits (e.g., summary judgment, verdict) | A dismissal affirmed on appeal suffices as a favorable conclusion | Adopts Korbel reasoning: "favorable conclusion" = favorable termination that reflects on the merits; procedural dismissals do not qualify |
| Whether the demurrer-based dismissal here was a "favorable conclusion" | Dismissal was procedural for failing to file certificates and did not reflect on merits; therefore not qualifying | Dismissal affirmed by appellate court is a favorable conclusion entitling fees | Dismissal here was procedural and did not indicate the claims lacked merit; not a qualifying favorable conclusion |
| Whether trial court properly awarded § 340.1(q) fees to defendants for appellate work | Award improper because statutory prerequisite (favorable conclusion on merits) not met | Award proper because defendants prevailed and are prevailing parties | Reversed: defendants not eligible for § 340.1(q) fees; fee order reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Korbel v. Chou, 27 Cal.App.4th 1427 (court held "favorable conclusion" requires termination reflective of the merits)
- Guinn v. Dotson, 23 Cal.App.4th 262 (discussed awarding fees under a comparable certificate-of-merit statute)
- Jaffe v. Stone, 18 Cal.2d 146 (defines "favorable termination" in malicious prosecution context)
- Jackson v. Doe, 192 Cal.App.4th 742 (describes certificate-of-merit requirement’s purpose to deter frivolous claims)