Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 23CMCV00871, Date: 2023-09-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CMCV00871    Hearing Date: September 26, 2023    Dept: A

23CMCV00871 The People v. Juan Zaragoza, et al.

Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 8:30 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO UNSEAL COMPLAINT

      The complaint alleges a claim under the Insurance Frauds Prevention Act (“IFBA”) on behalf of Plaintiff and Sintia Garcia, whose co-parent and son (“Decedents”) were employed by Bayview Services, Inc. (“Bayview”) and who were killed while traveling to work for Bayview. Garcia filed a worker's compensation claim with Bayview’s insurer, Great Divide Insurance Company, who denied the claim on grounds Decedents were not in the course and scope of employment.

      The complaint alleges that Defendants, employees of Bayview, made false and misleading statements of facts to support the contention that Decedents were not in the course and scope of employment, making Garcia ineligible for worker's compensation death benefits. These false statements violated the Penal Code entitling Garcia and Plaintiff to civil penalties.

      An action filed under Ins. Code section 1871.7 cannot be served on the defendant until the Court so orders and after the governmental entities decline to intervene in the matter. (Ins. Code, § 1871.7 (e) (2).) If the governmental entities elects not to proceed with the action, the person initiating the action shall have the right to conduct the litigation. (Ins. Code, § 1871.7(f) (3).)

      Plaintiff moves to unseal the complaint based on the parties’ stipulation. The Insurance Commissioner for the Department of Insurance (“Commissioner”) and the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office have declined to intervene in this matter, which permits the Plaintiff to proceed in the action and allow service on the Defendants. (Ins. Code, § 1871.7.)

      The Complaint does not appear to have been filed under seal in the first instance although Confidential Cover Sheets filed with the complaint have been placed under seal. Therefore, an order unsealing the complaint is unnecessary. Notwithstanding the foregoing, both governmental entities have submitted notices declining to intervene in the matter. Therefore, the Court grants the motion with respect to the Confidential Cover Sheets and proof of service filed under seal.