Curtis Eng'g Corp. v. Superior Court, No. D072046 (D4d1 Nov. 16, 2017)
In some professional negligence cases, the plaintiff is required to obtain and file a “certificate of merit”—basically a declaration from an expert attesting that the claim isn’t bogus. Under Code of Civil Procedure § 411.35, the certificate is supposed to be filed with the complaint. But if the attorney certifies that a certificate couldn’t be obtained fast enough to avoid blowing the statute, it can be filed within sixty days of the original filing. Plaintiff in this case didn’t file a certificate with the original complaint, and didn’t try to add one until well after the sixty days had passed and the statute of limitations had otherwise run. The Court here finds that puts plaintiff out of court.
Although Plaintiff claims that the relation back doctrine should apply, the Court holds that the Legislature didn’t intent to import a relation back concept when it passed § 411.35. The statute made its deadlines clear and mandatory. To apply a relation back concept to permit nunc pro tunc filings more than sixty days after filing would make them essentially meaningless. Thus, the trial court should have granted a demurrer and dismissed the case.
Writ granted.
Showing posts with label nunc pro tunc. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nunc pro tunc. Show all posts
Monday, December 18, 2017
Friday, September 4, 2015
Retroactive Post-Judgment Interest
Chodos v. Borman, No. B260326 (D2d5 August 18, 2015)
This is an appeal after remand of this case, where the court of appeal modified a judgment in a quantum meruit case because the trial court for permitted the jury to include a lodestar multiplier when calculating an attorney’s fees owed by his former client. The question on this second appeal is: From when and for how much does post-judgment interest run? The court holds that because the prior appeal only reduced the amount of the judgment, but did not reverse it on the merits, post-judgment interest should run from the date of the original judgment, but in the modified amount.
Reversed.
FWIW, this is the 400th post on this blog. Thanks to our readers for all your support!
This is an appeal after remand of this case, where the court of appeal modified a judgment in a quantum meruit case because the trial court for permitted the jury to include a lodestar multiplier when calculating an attorney’s fees owed by his former client. The question on this second appeal is: From when and for how much does post-judgment interest run? The court holds that because the prior appeal only reduced the amount of the judgment, but did not reverse it on the merits, post-judgment interest should run from the date of the original judgment, but in the modified amount.
Reversed.
FWIW, this is the 400th post on this blog. Thanks to our readers for all your support!
Friday, August 14, 2015
Mind Those Pro Hacs
Golba v. Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc., No G049611 (D4d3 Jul. 24, 2015)
This case is a consumer class action against a retailer for collecting zip codes. It eventually settled for a crappy coupon settlement. The laboring oar of the plaintiff work had been performed by an out-of-state attorney from Chicago. The local counsel who signed the complaint filed a pro hac vice motion—including a declaration that the Chicago attorney hadn’t been admitted pro hac in California in the last two years. But he failed to pay the required fee and inform the state bar, so the motion was denied. Unfortunately, nobody checked on the status of the motion, and plaintiffs proceeded as if the application were granted.
This case is a consumer class action against a retailer for collecting zip codes. It eventually settled for a crappy coupon settlement. The laboring oar of the plaintiff work had been performed by an out-of-state attorney from Chicago. The local counsel who signed the complaint filed a pro hac vice motion—including a declaration that the Chicago attorney hadn’t been admitted pro hac in California in the last two years. But he failed to pay the required fee and inform the state bar, so the motion was denied. Unfortunately, nobody checked on the status of the motion, and plaintiffs proceeded as if the application were granted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)