Doe 2826 v. Doe School District CA5

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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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