Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 20PDUD00512, Date: 2023-09-29 Tentative Ruling

Counsel who wish to submit on the tentative ruling may do so by emailing BURDeptB@lacourt.org

PLEASE WRITE THE CASE NUMBER AND PARTY YOU REPRESENT.  YOU MAY ONLY SUBMIT ON BEHALF OF THE PARTY YOU REPRESENT.  YOU MAY NOT SUBMIT ON BEHALF OF ANOTHER PARTY. Counsel are directed to cc all other counsel if you are submitting on the tentative ruling.

IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OR NEED CLARIFICATION ON THE TENTATIVE, YOU MUST APPEAR AND ADDRESS YOUR QUESTIONS TO THE COURT.

IF BOTH SIDES SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE RULING, THE TENTATIVE RULING THEN BECOMES THE ORDER OF THE COURT ON THE MOTION DATE AND NO APPEARANCES ARE NECESSARY.

THERE WILL BE NO RESPONSES TO ANY INQUIRIES SUBMITTED THROUGH THIS SITE.

Warning regarding electronic appearances:    All software for remote or electronic appearances is subject to malfunction based on system weakness and human error, which can originate from any of the multiple parties participating each morning. The seamless operation of the Court’s electronic appearance software is dependent on numerous inconstant and fluctuating factors that may impact whether you, or other counsel or the Court itself can be heard in a particular case. Not all these factors are within the control of the courtroom staff. For example, at times, the system traps participants in electronic purgatories where they cannot be heard and where the courtroom staff is not aware of their presence. If you call the courtroom, please be respectful of the fact that a court hearing is going on, and that the courtroom staff is doing their best to use an imperfect system. If it is truly important to you to be heard, please show up to the courtroom in the normal way. Parking is free or reasonable in Burbank.

THANK YOU!

Case Number: 20PDUD00512    Hearing Date: January 12, 2024    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.    Allegations

Plaintiff Dana Ingram commenced this unlawful detainer action on February 19, 2020 against Defendant Irene Estrada.  The property at issue is located at 1031 Amherst Drive, Burbank, CA 91504.  Plaintiff alleges she is the owner of the property.  She alleges that on August 1, 2019, Defendant rented the residential property pursuant to a written lease.  She alleges she served a 3-day notice to pay rent or quit on Defendant and at that time, the rent due was $16,200.  She seeks possession of the property, past due rent of $61,200, and damages of daily rent. 

B.     Relevant Background

The matter came for a non-jury trial.  On May 4, 2022, the Court issues is Decision of the Court, finding that Plaintiff was entitled to rent and damages in the amount of $66,420. 

On May 19, 2022, the Court entered the Judgment finding that: (1) Plaintiff was awarded damages from Defendant in the amount of $66,420; and (2) Plaintiff shall recover costs of suit in the amount of $921.14 (following the filing of a memorandum of costs) and attorney’s fees to be determined by motion.  The Notice of Entry of Judgment was filed with the Court and served on June 10, 2022.

C.     Motion on Calendar

The Court notes that Plaintiff previously filed a motion to unseal records on April 28, 2023.  The first motion came for hearing on September 29, 2023 and the Court heard oral argument and continued the hearing to October 27, 2023, ordering the parties to submit a written payment plan showing Defendant’s proposed monthly payment to satisfy the judgment.  The first motion came for hearing on October 27, 2023, but no parties appeared at the hearing and no submissions were made online to the Court’s tentative ruling, such that the Court placed the motion off-calendar. 

On November 3, 2023, Plaintiff filed a second motion to unseal the court records in their entirety.  The Court is not in receipt of an opposition brief.

LEGAL STANDARD

CCP § 1161.2(a)(2) states that parties in a limited action may stipulate to the sealing of court records. 

California Rules of Court, Rule 2.551(h) states:

(h) Motion, application, or petition to unseal records

(1) A sealed record must not be unsealed except on order of the court.

(2) 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. Notice of any motion, application, or petition to unseal must be filed and served on all parties in the case. 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 (c).

(3) If the court proposes to order a record unsealed on its own motion, the court must give notice to the parties stating the reason for unsealing the record. Unless otherwise ordered by the court, any party may serve and file an opposition within 10 days after the notice is provided and any other party may file a response within 5 days after the filing of an opposition.

(4) In determining whether to unseal a record, the court must consider the matters addressed in rule 2.550(c)-(e).

(5) The order unsealing a record must state whether the record is unsealed entirely or in part. 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. 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.

(CRC Rule 2.551(h).) 

            CRC Rule 2.550(c) to (e) states:

(c) Court records presumed to be open

Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open.

(d) Express factual findings required to seal records

The court may order that a record be filed under seal only if it expressly finds facts that establish:

(1) There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record;

(2) The overriding interest supports sealing the record;

(3) A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed;

(4) The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and

(5) No less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.

(e) Content and scope of the order

(1) An order sealing the record must:

(A) Specifically state the facts that support the findings; and

(B) Direct the sealing of only those documents and pages, or, if reasonably practicable, portions of those documents and pages, that contain the material that needs to be placed under seal. All other portions of each document or page must be included in the public file.

(2) Consistent with Code of Civil Procedure sections 639 and 645.1, if the records that a party is requesting be placed under seal are voluminous, the court may appoint a referee and fix and allocate the referee's fees among the parties.

(CRC Rule 2.550(c)-(e).) 

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff moves for an order unsealing the court records in this action.  Plaintiff argues that this case started as an unlawful detainer action, but then proceeded as an ordinary civil action for damages once Defendant gave up possession of the property.  Plaintiff states that no payment has been made by Plaintiff and Plaintiff has been unable to establish a payment plan with Defendant.  Plaintiff argues that because the action was converted to an ordinary civil case, the presumption of openness of court records should apply and the records unsealed. 

            The Court notes that on February 4, 2021, this action was reclassified as a limited civil unlawful detainer case to a case of general jurisdiction.  According to the Court’s electronic records, the case is deemed confidential. 

            CRC Rule 2.550(c) provides the presumption that court records are presumed to be open unless confidentiality is required by law.  Here, this action was an ordinary limited, unlawful detainer case and then was converted into a general civil action.  There are no discernable reasons why the case (other than initially being limited) was subject to sealing and confidentiality.  The Court notes there are no overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record, there are no overriding interests that support sealing the record, there would be no prejudice if the records were unsealed, the current confidential nature of the records is not narrowly tailored as it covers the entirety of the records, and no restrictive measures were used at the time of sealing.  In addition, there is no opposition to the motion. 

            In ruling on the first motion to unseal records, the Court previously ordered the parties to submit a written payment plan showing Defendant’s proposed monthly payments to satisfy the judgment.  The Court is not in receipt of a written payment plan from the parties.  The parties are ordered to attend the hearing so that the Court may inquire if a plan is forthcoming.

            However, in light of the lack of filing of the payment plan, the Court is inclined to grant the motion to unseal.  The unsealing of the records shall be as to the entirety of the court’s records in this action. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            The Court is inclined to grant Plaintiff’s motion to unseal the entirety of the court records.  The Court orders the parties to attend the hearing so that it may inquire whether the parties have agreed to a payment plan for Defendant. 

Plaintiff shall provide notice of this order.

Warning regarding electronic appearances:  All software for remote or electronic appearances is subject to malfunction based on system weakness and human error, which can originate from any of the multiple parties participating each morning. The seamless operation of the Court’s electronic appearance software is dependent on numerous inconstant and fluctuating factors that may impact whether you, or other counsel or the Court itself can be heard in a particular case. Not all these factors are within the control of the courtroom staff. For example, at times, the system traps participants in electronic purgatories where they cannot be heard and where the courtroom staff is not aware of their presence. If you call the courtroom, please be respectful of the fact that a court hearing is going on, and that the courtroom staff is doing their best to use an imperfect system. If it is truly important to you to be heard, please show up to the courtroom in the normal way. Parking is free or reasonable in Burbank.

DATED: January 12, 2024                                                     ______________________

                                                                                          John J. Kralik

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court