Legal Opinion

Rubenstein v. Doe

California Court of Appeal, 4th District

Decided March 22, 2016No. D066722PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMcINTYRE, J.

*1043In this case, we reject the argument that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant a Government Code section 946.6 petition finding that the statutory delayed discovery rule of Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1 applied to delay the accrual date of plaintiff's action for childhood sexual abuse. (Code Civ. Proc., § 340.1, subd. (a).) (Undesignated statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.) We also address a number of issues of first impression regarding the certificate of merit requirement under section 340.1, including that: (1) the certificates are not required to be…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. State v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
  2. Austin v. Massachusetts Bonding & InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
  3. Arnett v. Dal CieloCalifornia Supreme Court · 1996
  4. North Bay Regional Center v. MaldonadoCalifornia Supreme Court · 2010
  5. Doe v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2007

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. City of Pasadena v. Superior Court of L. A. Cnty., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017
  2. City of Pasadena v. Super. Ct.California Court of Appeal · 2017
  3. Pilcher v. CarMax Auto Superstores, Inc.District Court, E.D. California · 2025
  4. Zamudio v. Aerotek, Inc.District Court, E.D. California · 2024

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API