S.C. v. Doe 1

Summary

The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, considers an appeal from summary judgment entered for Doe 1 in a childhood sexual assault action brought under former California Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1. The court holds that the certificate-of-merit requirement did not preclude S.C. from seeking leave to amend the complaint under section 473, subdivision (a)(1), after foster-care records revealed that the alleged abuse occurred during a different period than initially pleaded. The court reverses the summary judgment and the orders denying S.C.'s motions to amend.

Holdings

1. Former section 340.1 did not exempt actions subject to its certificate-of-merit requirement from the generally applicable authority to amend pleadings under section 473, subdivision (a)(1). Its provisions concerning substitution of Doe defendants did not contain exclusivity language making that the only permissible amendment.
2. The superior court abused its discretion by denying S.C. leave to amend the complaint to correct the assault period from approximately 1981 to 1984 through 1986.
3. Summary judgment for Doe 1 was improper because it was based on the original complaint's 1981 allegation, and S.C. should have been permitted to file an amended complaint alleging that the assault occurred between 1984 and 1986 while she was in Doe 1's custody.
4. S.C. could file amended certificates of merit, and those certificates could relate back to the timely filed original certificates because the amendment arose from the same general set of facts.

Questions Presented

1. Whether former Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1's certificate-of-merit requirement prohibited S.C. from amending the factual allegations of her complaint under section 473, subdivision (a)(1).
2. Whether the superior court abused its discretion by denying S.C. leave to amend her complaint to correct the alleged dates of the assault.
3. Whether summary judgment was proper when it was based on the original complaint's incorrect allegation that S.C. was in Doe 1's custody in 1981.
4. Whether S.C. could file amended certificates of merit relating back to the timely filed original certificates.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded