Judge: Edward B. Moreton, Jr, Case: 23SMCV00653, Date: 2024-12-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV00653    Hearing Date: December 11, 2024    Dept: 205

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – West District

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205

BACKGROUND

               This case arises from an employment dispute.  Plaintiff Jane Doe was employed as a server for Defendant The Huntley Hotel (the “Huntley”) from 2016 until her constructive termination on May 13, 2022.  (First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) ¶¶18, 45.)  Defendant Second Street Corporation operates the Huntley in Santa Monica.  (FAC ¶2.) 

Plaintiff alleges she was attacked and sexually assaulted by Defendant Ryan Jackson (“Jackson”), a co-worker, outside of work.  (FAC ¶ 18.)  Despite being told about the assault, Defendant Eman Rivani, the food & beverage director, conducted no investigation and scheduled Plaintiff and Jackson for the same shifts.  (FAC ¶¶ 31-32.)  Rivani told another co-worker that his plan was to make Plaintiff so uncomfortable that she would quit.  (FAC ¶42.)

Defendant Manju Raman is the general manager of the Huntley.  (FAC ¶ 4.)  When another manager complained to Raman that Rivani was scheduling Plaintiff and Jackson on the same shifts, Raman responded that Plaintiff was sleeping with Jackson.  (FAC ¶¶ 36-37.)  When Plaintiff learned of the statement, she confronted Raman and also reported Rivani’s sexist and harassing conduct towards her and other female employees.  Again, no investigation was initiated.  (FAC ¶39.)  Instead, Raman told Plaintiff to “toughen up and grow a thick skin.”  (FAC ¶40.)  Raman also threatened Plaintiff that if she continued to make waves, “you need to ask yourself if the risk is going to be worth the reward.”  (Id.)   

On May 13, 2022, Plaintiff wrote the owners of the Huntley to file a formal complaint of sexual harassment and retaliation and informed them of her constructive discharge.  Plaintiff detailed Jackson’s sexually unwelcome conduct and Raman’s defamatory statement about an alleged consensual affair.   (FAC ¶ 45.)  Plaintiff also informed the owners that Raman and Rivani knowingly created intolerable working conditions such that she could not return to work.  (Id.)  Three nights later, Huntley responded via its owner that it was conducting an investigation, but Plaintiff was never interviewed.  (FAC ¶47.)  

A day later, Plaintiff called a suicide hotline reporting that she was suicidal due to the stress of what was happening to her at work.  The police arrived at Plaintiff’s home and took her under a 5150 hold.  (FAC ¶49.)

The operative (first amended) complaint alleges 18 causes of action for (1) sexual harassment, (2) sex/gender discrimination, (3) failure to prevent discrimination and harassment in violation of FEHA, (4) retaliation in violation of FEHA, (5) constructive wrongful termination, (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (7) negligent supervision and retention, (8) violation of Labor Code § 1102.5, (9) violation of Labor Code § 6310, (10) failure to pay minimum wages, (11) failure to pay overtime wages, (12) failure to provide meal periods, (13) failure to authorize or permit rest periods, (14) failure to provide and maintain compliant wage statements, (15) illegal split shifts premium, (16) slander per se, (17) libel per se and (18) unfair business practices. 

This hearing is on Defendants Second Street Corporation and Manju Raman’s (“Moving Defendants’”) motion to dismiss for improper use of pseudonym or, in the alternative, motion to unseal the first amended complaint.  Moving Defendants argue that Plaintiff filed the lawsuit under a pseudonym without prior court permission to do so, and had she sought the Court’s permission, she would not have satisfied the “overriding interest” test that justifies disregarding First Amendment’s requirement of openness in judicial actions. 

LEGAL STANDARD

Under Code Civ. Proc. § 422.40, the names of all parties to a civil action must be included in the complaint.   Because of the inherently sensitive nature of some proceedings, statutes specifically allow for keeping certain parties’ identities confidential. (Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 105, 110 (“DFEH”) (citing statutes).)  Even in the absence of a statute, anonymity for parties may be granted when necessary to preserve an important privacy interest. (Id.)

Much like closing the courtroom or sealing a court record, allowing a party to litigate anonymously impacts the First Amendment’s right to public access.  (Id. at 111.)  In the absence of a statute expressly authorizing such confidentiality, before a party to a civil action can be permitted to use a pseudonym, the trial court must conduct a hearing and apply the overriding interest test.  (Id.) 

Under the overriding interest test, a party’s request for anonymity should be granted only if the court finds that an overriding interest will likely be prejudiced without use of a pseudonym, and that it is not feasible to protect the interest with less impact on the constitutional right of access. (Id.) In deciding the issue, the court must bear in mind the critical importance of the public’s right to access judicial proceedings.  (Id.)  Outside of cases where anonymity is expressly permitted by statute, litigating by pseudonym should occur “only in the rarest of circumstances.” (Id.)

In Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp. (9th Cir. 2000) 214 F.3d 1058, 1068 (“Advanced Textile”), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals noted that federal courts have permitted plaintiffs to use pseudonyms in three situations: (1) when identification creates a risk of retaliatory physical or mental harm; (2) when anonymity is necessary to preserve privacy in a matter of sensitive and highly personal nature; and (3) when the anonymous party is compelled to admit their intention to engage in illegal conduct, thereby risking criminal prosecution. California appellate courts have cited the framework and factors set forth in Advanced Textile with approval.  (See, e.g., DFEH, 82 Cal.App.5th at 112; Doe v. Lincoln Unified School Dist. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 758, 767.)

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff argues she should be permitted to proceed in this action under a pseudonym because of the sensitive and private nature of her allegations against Defendants. Plaintiff contends that the disclosure of her identity may negatively impact her professional and social life and subject her to stigma.  She may suffer stigma from being a sexual assault victim and additionally because she contemplated suicide and had to be placed on an involuntary hold. 

Defendants argue that Plaintiff fails to establish special circumstances that warrant allowing Plaintiff to proceed under a fictitious name.  Defendants argue there is no risk of retaliation or of physical harm because the alleged harasser, Ryan Jackson, has had no contact with Plaintiff for two years and is probably 2,000 miles away, in Hawaii.  Additionally, Plaintiff cannot fear retaliation by Huntley because she is no longer employed by the hotel.  Defendants point out that Plaintiff is an actress and may be concerned about the publicity of the lawsuit but that is not a sufficient basis to file the lawsuit under a pseudonym.  Further, Defendants sarcasticly argue Plaintiff will not be prejudiced if her identity is unmasked because she is “not on the verge of public election to office” nor “on the verge of a premiere in an Oscar worthy movie in which she has a starring role.”  According to Defendants, there is less restrictive means to protect Plaintiff’s interest including a restraining order against Jackson and/or using a stage name when she is performing. 

Upon review of the moving and opposing arguments in addition to the allegations of the FAC, the Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated that the use of a pseudonym is warranted under the standards articulated in DFEH and Advanced Textile.  Plaintiff’s claims involve allegations of harassment and sexual assault by her employer and co-worker, and the disclosure of her identity poses a significant risk of potential personal and professional stigma due to the personal nature of the allegations. Withholding Plaintiff's identity does not impact in any major way the public’s right of access to court records related to this matter—only Plaintiff’s name is concealed.  All other facts are public.  Furthermore, there is no prejudice to Defendants.  Defendants are aware of Plaintiff's identity, and there is no indication that her anonymity has prevented them from pursuing evidence to defend against her claims.  (See, e.g., Doe v. Young (July 5, 2023) 2023 Cal. Super. Lexis 38754 at *4-*5 (granting plaintiff's motion to proceed under a pseudonym where plaintiff claimed she was harassed and sexually assaulted during her employment by defendants); Doe v. Rojas (Feb. 8, 2023) 2023 Cal. Super. LEXIS 14945 at *2 (granting plaintiff’s motion for protective order to proceed under a pseudonym where plaintiff alleges she was a victim of sexual assault by defendant).)

CONCLUSION

            For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to dismiss or in the alternative to unseal the first amended complaint. 

DATED: December 11, 2024                                              ___________________________

Edward B. Moreton, Jr.

Judge of the Superior Court