Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
person holding a valid registration as a professional engineer”. (Code Civ. Proc. § 411.35(a), emphases added.) The failure to file a certificate is grounds for a demurrer. (Code Civ. Proc. § 411.35(g).)
A corporation may be a “person holding a valid registration as a professional engineer”. (Bus. & Prof. Code § 6738(a); see, e.g., Curtis Eng’g Corp. v. Superior Court (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 542, 545-546 [applying section 411.35 to a corporate provider of engineering services]; Price v. Dames & Moore (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 355, 357 [same].) The judicially noticed records establish that Defendant AECOM was a corporate provider of professional engineering services with licensed engineers as owners or officers in charge at all times relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims. (RJN, Exhs. A-B.)
Despite Plaintiffs’ attempt to argue otherwise, all of their claims against Defendant AECOM arise out of its alleged professional negligence. Plaintiffs explicitly alleged that Defendant “is in the business of providing construction design services” (SAC, ¶ 9) and breached its duty to Plaintiff by negligently “engineering” and “designing” the construction work. (SAC, ¶¶ 35, 45.) More specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant failed to “properly clos[e] off the subject premises to civilian vehicles”. (Ibid.)
Any misconfiguration of the “delineators” that might have improperly permitted unauthorized vehicles into the work area involves engineering judgment and constitutes professional work product. Being able to properly discern issues to address from inspections of the worksite (or to determine whether the manner of inspection is adequate) would also require specialized engineering judgment. Consequently, Plaintiffs’ counsel was required to file and serve the certificate pursuant to section 411.35(b) before the date of service of the complaint on any defendant or, if Plaintiffs’ counsel was unable to obtain the consultation because a statute of limitations would impair the action, within 60 days after filing the complaint.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
FELICIA PRATER BROWN vs. COLONIAL CHAPEL VALLEJO Case No. CU24-07061
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
TENTATIVE RULING
Defendant COLONIAL CHAPEL VALLEJO’s unopposed motion to dismiss Plaintiff FELICIA PRATER BROWN’s complaint against it is granted. On September 9, 2025 this court granted Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings against Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend, permitting Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty days. Plaintiff never filed an amended complaint. The court uses its discretion to dismiss her complaint against Defendant now per Code of Civil Procedure section 581, subdivision (f)(2).