Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 23STUD11910, Date: 2024-10-31 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 40 - JUDGE ANNE RICHARDSON - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
The Court issues tentative rulings on certain motions.The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) email Dept 40 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (smcdept40@lacourt.org) with a copy to the other party(ies) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no email is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. 

Case Number: 23STUD11910    Hearing Date: October 31, 2024    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

I. Background

On September 12, 2023, Plaintiff Hania Moghaddam c/o Vista Bastian Estates, LP (Moghaddam) filed an unlawful detainer complaint against Defendants Erika Silva, Humberto Alfaro, Jessica Alfaro, Kenya Alfaro, David Alfaro, and Rylee Alfaro (the Tenants) for violating a lease agreement for premises located at 1823 W. 12th Street, Los Angeles, CA, 90006 (the Subject Property.

On December 15, 2023, the parties signed a Stipulated Judgment which included a Section 1542 waiver in which the parties agreed to waive the right to sue other parties for all claims related to the subject property.

On September 19, 2024, Moghaddam filed the instant motion to unseal the Stipulated Judgment, contending that the Tenants breached the terms of the Judgment in filing case number 24STCV10316.

Defendants have not filed an opposition, despite a facially valid proof of service to counsel of record in the 24STCV10316 matter attached to the motion.

II. Motion

A.    Legal Standard

Pursuant to CRC, rule 2.550 (c), unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open.¿Subject¿to certain exceptions, a court record must not be filed under seal without a court order. (Overstock.com, Inc. v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.¿(2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 471, 486.) 

A party requesting that a record be filed under seal must file a motion or an application for an order sealing the record. (CRC, rule 2.551 (b).) The motion or application¿must¿be accompanied by a memorandum and a¿declaration containing facts sufficient¿to justify the sealing. (Ibid.) In order for records to be sealed, a trial court must hold a hearing and expressly find that: (1) there exists an overriding interest supporting closure and/or sealing; (2) there is a substantial probability that the interest will be prejudiced absent closure and/or sealing; (3) the proposed closure and/or sealing is narrowly tailored to serve the overriding interest; and (4) there is no¿less restrictive means of achieving the overriding interest.¿(Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Superior Court¿(2003) 110 Cal.App.4th¿1273, 1279.)¿Since court records are public records, the burden rests on the party seeking to deny public access to those records to establish compelling reasons why and to what extent these records should be made private. (Mary R. v. B. & R. Corp. (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 308, 317.) 

¿           A party or member of the public may move, apply, or petition, or the court on its own motion may move, to unseal a record.¿(CRC, rule 2.551(h)(2).)¿ Notice of any motion, application, or petition to unseal must be filed and served on all parties in the case. (Ibid.)¿The motion, application, or petition and any opposition, reply, and supporting documents must be filed in a public redacted version and a sealed complete version if necessary to comply with CRC, rule 2.551(c).¿(Ibid.) 

In determining whether to unseal a record, the court must consider the matters addressed in CRC, rule 2.550(c)-(e). (CRC, rule 2.551(h)(4).)¿The order unsealing a record must state whether the record is unsealed entirely or in part.¿(CRC, rule 2.551(h)(5).) If the court's order unseals only part of the record or unseals the record only as to certain persons, the order must specify the particular records that are unsealed, the particular persons who may have access to the record, or both. (Ibid.) If, in addition to the records in the envelope, container, or secure electronic file, the court has previously ordered the sealing order, the register of actions, or any other court records relating to the case to be sealed, the unsealing order must state whether these additional records are unsealed. (Ibid.) 

B. Analysis

Moghaddam argues that the Stipulated Judgment should be unsealed because the Tenants breached the terms of the 1542 waiver in the Judgment by filing another lawsuit against Moghaddam, case number 24STCV10316, which relates to the Subject Property. (Antony Decl. ¶ 5).  Moghaddam argues that the Judgment should be unsealed, so she can ask the Court to enforce the Judgment under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 664.6.

Additionally, Moghaddam states that the Tenants are claiming that the 1542 waiver is invalid because they only speak and read in Spanish and the Judgment terms were in English. (Antony Decl. ¶ 4). However, Moghaddam contends that the Tenants were afforded a Spanish interpreter to review the terms before signing and were represented by counsel, and thus the Judgment should be unsealed so that Moghaddam can defend herself in case number 24STCV10316.

Here, Moghaddam would be substantially prejudiced if the portions of the Judgment that are relevant to her defense remain sealed, and the Judgment could not be enforced. It is undisputed that the parties entered into the Stipulated Judgment, that it contained a 1542 waiver, and that the Tenants have filed a subsequent suit alleging habitability concerns of the same Subject Property. The Judgment also provides that if the Tenants fail to comply with the Judgment, Moghaddam can seek to have the Judgment unsealed. The Tenants have not opposed the motion, and thus have offered no overriding interest in maintaining the status quo or offered any evidence to rebut Moghaddam’s evidence that they have violated the terms of the Stipulated Judgment.

Thus, the motion to unseal the Stipulated Judgment is GRANTED.

III. Conclusion

Hania Moghaddam c/o Vista Bastian Estates, LP’s Motion to Unseal the Stipulated Judgment is GRANTED.