Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case 22TRCV01219 2023-03-02 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 22TRCV01219, Date: 2023-03-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22TRCV01219 Hearing Date: March 2, 2023 Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling

HEARING DATE: March 2, 2023¿

CASE NUMBER: 22TRCV01219

CASE NAME: Jane Doe 1, et al v. Defendant Doe School District, et al.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs, Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, and Jane Doe 5

RESPONDING PARTY: None

TRIAL DATE: None set

MOTION:¿ (1) Motion to Seal Certificates of Merit and Application to Proceed Under Fictitious Name

Tentative Rulings: (1) Motion to Seal and to proceed under fictious names is GRANTED; Plaintiff should promptly file under seal its certificates of merit and certificate of corroborative fact

I. BACKGROUND¿

A. Factual¿

¿¿

On November 14, 2022, Plaintiffs, Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, and Jane Doe 5 (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendants, Defendant Doe School District (“Defendant”), and Defendant DOES 2 through 100. The complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) Claim for Childhood Sexual Assault in Violation of California Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1; (2) Negligence; (3) Negligent Supervision/Failure to Warn; (4) Negligent Retention/Hiring; (5) Negligent Failure to Warn, Train, or Educate; (6) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; and (7) Sexual Harassment. The complaint is based on the alleged childhood sexual abuse of Plaintiffs at the hands of a teacher at DOE High School.

B. Procedural

On January 13, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Seal Certificates of Merit and Application to Proceed Under Fictitious Name. To date, no opposition has been filed, although there is no proof of service on any defendant so one would not expect opposition.

¿II. ANALYSIS ¿

A. Legal Standard

California Code of Civil Procedure Section 340.1 discusses the certificate of merit process in cases of claims of adult victims of childhood sexual abuse. Subsection (f) states: “Every plaintiff 40 years of age or older at the time the action is filed shall file certificates of merit as specified in subdivision (g).” Subsection (g) requires the attorney for the plaintiff and by a licensed mental health practitioner selected by the plaintiff declaring:

“(1) That the attorney has reviewed the facts of the case, consulted with at least one mental health practitioner who the attorney reasonably believes is knowledgeable of the relevant facts and issues involved in the particular action, and concluded on the basis of that review and consultation that there is reasonable and meritorious cause for the filing of the action.

(2) That the mental health practitioner consulted is licensed to practice and practices in this state and is not a party to the action, that the practitioner is not treating and has not treated the plaintiff, and that the practitioner has interviewed the plaintiff and is knowledgeable of the relevant facts and issues involved in the particular action, and has concluded, on the basis of the practitioner's knowledge of the facts and issues, that in the practitioner's professional opinion there is a reasonable basis to believe that the plaintiff had been subject to childhood sexual abuse.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 340.1(g)(1), (2).)

In most other Section 340.1 cases pending before the Court, plaintiff’s counsel has submitted an ex parte application with the certificates of merit lodged under seal for in camera review per subdivision (i), along with a proposed sealing order. Here, Plaintiff has placed the cart before the horse, seeking the sealing order first with no certificate of merit having been filed and with no certificate of corroborative fact.

Here, the Court is willing to grant the sealing order in advance, upon the expectation that the certificates of merit and of Corroborative fact will shortly be submitted under seal for in camera review