Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: BC661332, Date: 2023-01-04 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: BC661332 Hearing Date: January 4, 2023 Dept: 32
EFD USA, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. BAND PRO FILM AND
DIGITAL, INC., et al., Defendants. |
Case No.: BC661332 Hearing Date: January 4, 2023 [TENTATIVE]
order RE: plaintiff EFD usa, inc.’s motion to seal
records |
|
|
BACKGROUND
On May 15, 2017, Plaintiffs EFD USA
Inc. (EFD) and Georgina Teran (Teran) filed this action against Band Pro Film
and Digital, Inc. (Band Pro), Direct Video Warehouse, Inc. (DVWI), Maxpro
Leasing, LLC (Maxpro), AKT Enterprises, LLC (AKT), Technijan, Inc. (Technijan),
Brandon Brooks (Brooks), Greg Bisel (Bisel), and Amnon Band. EFD is a supplier
of motion picture equipment and services to film and television productions.
Teran is the founder of EFD. This dispute stems from EFD’s allegations about
fraudulent and other improper charges by its major supplier and others
regarding equipment financing transactions. The operative First Amended
Complaint (FAC) was filed November 21, 2017.
Plaintiffs settled the matter with Bisel
and his related entities Maxpro, AKT, and Technijan (collectively, Bisel
Defendants). The settlement addressed: EFD’s claims; AKT’s cross-claim for
breach of contract; and a separate lawsuit filed by Bisel regarding an illegally
recorded phone call. The matter went to trial before a jury on three claims
asserted by EFD against Band Pro, Amnon Band, and Brandon Brooks: (1) fraud;
(2) aiding and abetting fraud; and (3) money had and received. According to the
verdict rendered on October 19, 2022, the jury found Band Pro and Brooks liable
on all three claims, and Amnon Band liable for aiding and abetting fraud. As for
damages, the jury attributed $49,481 to Band Pro, $49,481 to Brooks, and $10,995
to Amnon Band, for a total of $109,958. EFD also has UCL claims against Band
Pro, Amnon Band, Brooks, and DVWI, which were heard as a bench trial.
Addressed herein is EFD’s motion to
file under seal documents related to the Bisel settlement.
DISCUSSION
The motion is moot because the
parties have already filed their motions, and the information contained therein
is already in the public record. The Court has already ruled on the matter and
issued a proposed statement of decision. EFD should have raised the issue
earlier if it wanted certain records filed under seal.
CONCLUSION
EFD’s motion to seal is DENIED.