Your recipients will receive an email with this envelope shortly and will be able to access it on trellis. You can always see your envelopes by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
411.35.
(a) In every action, including a cross-complaint for damages or indemnity, arising out of the professional negligence of a person holding a valid architect’s certificate issued pursuant to Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 5500) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code, or of a person holding a valid registration as a professional engineer issued pursuant to Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 6700) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code, or a person holding a valid land surveyor’s license issued pursuant to Chapter
15 (commencing with Section 8700) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code on or before the date of service of the complaint or cross-complaint on any defendant or cross-defendant, the attorney for the plaintiff or cross-complainant shall file and serve the certificate specified by subdivision (b).(b) A certificate shall be executed by the attorney for the plaintiff or cross-complainant declaring one of the following:
(1) That the attorney has reviewed the facts of the case, that the attorney has consulted with and received an opinion from at least one architect, professional engineer, or land surveyor who is licensed to practice and practices in this state or any other state, or who teaches at an accredited college or university and is licensed to practice in this state or any other state, in the same discipline as the defendant or cross-defendant and who the attorney
reasonably believes is knowledgeable in the relevant issues involved in the particular action, and that the attorney has concluded on the basis of this review and consultation that there is reasonable and meritorious cause for the filing of this action. The person consulted may not be a party to the litigation. The person consulted shall render his or her opinion that the named defendant or cross-defendant was negligent or was not negligent in the performance of the applicable professional services.(2) That the attorney was unable to obtain the consultation required by paragraph (1) because a statute of limitations would impair the action and that the certificate required by paragraph (1) could not be obtained before the impairment of the action. If a certificate is executed pursuant to this paragraph, the certificate required by paragraph (1) shall be filed within 60 days after filing the complaint.
(3) That the attorney was unable to obtain the consultation required by paragraph (1) because the attorney had made three separate good faith attempts with three separate architects, professional engineers, or land surveyors to obtain this consultation and none of those contacted would agree to the consultation.
(c) Where a certificate is required pursuant to this section, only one certificate shall be filed, notwithstanding that multiple defendants have been named in the complaint or may be named at a later time.
(d) Where the attorney intends to rely solely on the doctrine of “res ipsa loquitur,” as defined in Section 646 of the Evidence Code, or exclusively on a failure to inform of the consequences of a procedure, or both, this section shall be inapplicable. The attorney shall certify upon filing of the complaint that
the attorney is solely relying on the doctrines of “res ipsa loquitur” or failure to inform of the consequences of a procedure or both, and for that reason is not filing a certificate required by this section.(e) For purposes of this section, and subject to Section 912 of the Evidence Code, an attorney who submits a certificate as required by paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (b) has a privilege to refuse to disclose the identity of the architect, professional engineer, or land surveyor consulted and the contents of the consultation. The privilege shall also be held by the architect, professional engineer, or land surveyor so consulted. If, however, the attorney makes a claim under paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) that he or she was unable to obtain the required consultation with the architect, professional engineer, or land surveyor, the court may require the attorney to divulge the names of architects, professional engineers, or land
surveyors refusing the consultation.(f) A violation of this section may constitute unprofessional conduct and be grounds for discipline against the attorney, except that the failure to file the certificate required by paragraph (1) of subdivision (b), within 60 days after filing the complaint and certificate provided for by paragraph (2) of subdivision (b), shall not be grounds for discipline against the attorney.
(g) The failure to file a certificate in accordance with this section shall be grounds for a demurrer pursuant to Section 430.10 or a motion to strike pursuant to Section 435.
(h) Upon the favorable conclusion of the litigation with respect to any party for whom a certificate of merit was filed or for whom a certificate of merit should have been filed pursuant to this section, the trial court may, upon the
motion of a party or upon the court’s own motion, verify compliance with this section, by requiring the attorney for the plaintiff or cross-complainant who was required by subdivision (b) to execute the certificate to reveal the name, address, and telephone number of the person or persons consulted with pursuant to subdivision (b) that were relied upon by the attorney in preparation of the certificate of merit. The name, address, and telephone number shall be disclosed to the trial judge in an in-camera proceeding at which the moving party shall not be present. If the trial judge finds there has been a failure to comply with this section, the court may order a party, a party’s attorney, or both, to pay any reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by another party as a result of the failure to comply with this section.(i) For purposes of this section, “action” includes a complaint or cross-complaint for equitable indemnity
arising out of the rendition of professional services whether or not the complaint or cross-complaint specifically asserts or utilizes the terms “professional negligence” or “negligence.”
Therefore, CCP section 411.35(d) applies. Defendants assert that Plaintiffs were still required to file a certificate of claim under CCP section 411.35(d), even if CCP section 411.35(d) did apply.
BONILLA VS JENNINGS
37-2023-00007617-CU-BC-CTL
Oct 20, 2023
San Diego County, CA
Since Defendant’s alleged conduct was intentional and not negligent, Code of Civil Procedure section 411.35 does not apply. In its Reply, Defendant contends that definition of “action” under Code of Civil Procedure section 411.35, subdivision (i), requires Plaintiff to file the certificate pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 411.35, subdivision (b).
THE BOUDREAU FAMILY TRUST V. FIRST AMERICAN SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
30-2017-00935690-CU-IC-CJC
Nov 07, 2017
Orange County, CA
Procedure section 411.35, subdivision (b), which applies whenever filing a negligence complaint against an engineer or similar professional.
1059CORNING, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS MARMAR CORNING, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.
21SMCV00991
Nov 09, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Thus, a section 411.35 certificate was required. The section 411.35 certificate was not filed and served until March 14, 2018, which was after service of the complaint on C & V Consulting. This date of service occurred on December 5, 2017, after the applicable limitations period expired. Thus, there is no possibility that this defect can be cured such that this Demurrer is sustained without leave to amend.
SANTEE SCHOOL DISTRICT VS. LENNAR HOMES
37-2016-00035202-CU-PO-CTL
May 23, 2018
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Prober demurs on two grounds: (1) Strong has failed to file and serve a certificate of merit as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 411.35; and, (2) Strong has failed to adequately allege its claim for express indemnity against Prober. In response to the demurrer, Strong filed a certificate of merit on April 18, 2012.
ASSOCIATED READY MIXED CONCRETE INC VS JEMESA PROPERTIES LLC
1383087
May 02, 2012
Santa Barbara County, CA
Mar 03, 2022
Judgment (Other)
Superior
San Mateo County, CA
Dec 28, 2018
Removal
Superior
San Diego County, CA
Breach of Contract/Warranty
Commercial
Breach of Contract
Jul 21, 2023
Active
Compton
Los Angeles County, CA
Other Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death (General Jurisdiction)
Torts
Personal Injury
May 19, 2016
Dismissal
San Diego County
San Diego County, CA
Breach of Contract/Warranty
Commercial
Breach of Contract
Apr 18, 2008
Dismissal
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles County, CA
Negligent Breach of Contract/Warranty (no fraud) (General Jurisdiction)
Commercial
Negligent Breach
FILED SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFpRN1A 1 Saerim Luciano SBN 295829 CDUNTY OF SAN BERiVARDINO PEARLMAN BROWN WAX L L P SAN BERNARDINO CIVi…
San Bernardino County, CA
Jul 02, 2020
Professional Negligence Unlimited
Ted R. Gropman, Esq. (SBN 93936) Michelle B. Rosenberg, Esq. (SBN 291794) 2 PEPPER HAMIL TON LLP 350 South Grand A venue, Suite 3400 3 Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone: 213.928.9800 4 Facsimile: 213.928. 9850 Email: gropmant@pepperlaw.com 5 Attorneys for Defendant and Cross-Complainant 6 5959 LLC 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES -- TORRANCE JO 11 …
Oct 25, 2018
Pending
Los Angeles County, CA
Mar 21, 2019
Other Breach of Contract/Warranty (not fraud or negligence) (General Jurisdiction)
E-FILED 1 Brandon C. Murphy, SB # 239528 Bice Murphy Law 2 12114th Street, Suite 200 3 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Ph.(310)451-8678 4 Fx. (310) 451-4698 Email: bimuyhyu/''.bicda\v.com 5 6 Attorney for Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants Wanyu Luo and Denong Tea, Inc. 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA …
Los Angeles County, CA
Apr 24, 2020
Contract/Warranty Breach - Seller Plaintiff (no fraud/negligence) (General Jurisdiction)
E-FILED 1 Theodore D. Levin, Esq., SBN: 124946 TLevin(a)clarkhill.com 2 Christopher J. Menjou, Esq., SBN: 173996 CMenjou@clarkhill.com 3 CLARK HILL LLP 1055 West Seventh Street, 24th Floor 4 Los Angeles, California 9001 7 Telephone: (213) 891-9100 5 Facsimile: (213) 488-1178 6 Attorneys for Defendants ZOL TAN E. PALI, an Individual and …
Jun 26, 2018
Pending
Los Angeles County, CA
Feb 25, 2019
Other Commercial/Business Tort (not fraud/ breach of contract) (General Jurisdiction)
™ VIA FAX @ SINGH, SINGH & TRAUBEN, LLP MICHAEL A. TRAUBEN (SBN: 277557) FILED mtrauben@singhtraubenlaw.com Superior Cour…
Los Angeles County, CA
Jul 20, 2018
Other Breach of Contract/Warranty (not fraud or negligence) (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.