Jackson v. Doe, 192 Cal. App. 4th 742

Plaintiff Olinda Jackson filed a pro se 2009 complaint against John Doe alleging childhood sexual abuse and resulting damages.
She claimed molestation began in 1968 and continued through about 1977 in Napa County and possibly other counties.
She did not file certificates of merit within the statute of limitations or within 60 days of filing, nor did she obtain court approval before naming Doe or serving the complaint.
Doe demurred on the basis that the certificates of merit were required by § 340.1 and not filed to corroborate her claims before the statute ran.
The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend and denied relief under § 473, prompting appellate review.
The court ultimately affirmed, holding the certificates of merit were mandatory and time-bar barred the action, and § 473 relief did not apply.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether untimely demurrer was properly considered	Jackson contends the demurrer was untimely and should be ignored.	Doe argues the court could consider the untimely demurrer in its discretion.	Court acted within its discretion to consider the demurrer.
Whether failure to file certificates of merit bars the action	Jackson argues certificates could be cured or were not required due to proprio persona status.	Doe maintains certificates are mandatory for all plaintiffs 26+ and failure bars the action.	Failure to file certificates bars the action; not excused for proprio persona plaintiff.
Whether § 473 relief can revive time-barred claims	Jackson sought § 473 relief for attorney neglect and excusable neglect to cure defects.	Doe contends § 473 relief cannot rescue a time-barred action or cure the certificates defect.	§ 473 relief cannot revive a time-barred action here.
Whether the amended complaint could relate back or cure the defect	Jackson proposed amending to include certificates and new facts to toll or cure the defect.	Doe argued amendments cannot cure the fatal § 340.1 certificate deficiency.	Amendment could not cure the fatal certificate defect; time-bar stood.

Doyle v. Fenster, 47 Cal.App.4th 1701 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) (certificates of merit are required as an aspect of the complaint)
Dutra v. Eagleson, 146 Cal.App.4th 216 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (limits period for childhood sexual abuse actions and merits certificates)
McVeigh v. Doe 1, 138 Cal.App.4th 898 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (attorney certificate timing for late-filed merits; certificates as pleading aspect)
Price v. Dames & Moore, 92 Cal.App.4th 355 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (demonstrates distinction when a proper certificate can cure defects)
Doyle v. Fenster, 47 Cal.App.4th 1701 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) (reiterated certificate of merit requirements)
Strauch v. Superior Court, 107 Cal.App.3d 45 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980) (historical context on certificates of merit timing)
Hightower v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Sacramento, 142 Cal.App.4th 759 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (statutory interpretation of certificates of merit)
McAllister v. County of Monterey, 147 Cal.App.4th 253 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (permissive extension under § 473 and demurrer timing)
Maynard v. Brandon, 36 Cal.4th 364 (Cal. 2005) (section 473 does not rescue jurisdictional time-bar penalties)