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.