Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 22STCV18317, Date: 2022-12-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV18317    Hearing Date: December 7, 2022    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On August 26, 2022, Plaintiff E.H. filed this action against Doe 1 and Doe 2, arising from childhood sexual assault.  On December 5, 2022, Plaintiff filed an ex parte application to seal the certificates of merit and certificate of corroborative facts, approve the certificates of merit and permit service, permit amendment of the complaint to name the defendants, and permit Plaintiff to proceed under a fictitious name.

A.        Seal Certificates of Merit and Certificate of Corroborative Facts

A plaintiff who is 40 years of age or older in an action arising from childhood sexual assault must file a certificate of corroborative fact and certificates of merit executed by the attorney for the plaintiff and by a licensed mental health practitioner selected by the plaintiff, and the court must review them in camera.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 340.1, subds. (f)-(g), (i), (n).)

Because records examined in camera must be filed under seal (California Rules of Court, rule 2.585(b)) and the Court must keep all certificates of corroborative fact under seal (Code Civ. Proc., § 340.1, subd. (o)), the request to seal Plaintiff’s Certificates of Merit and Certificate of Corroborative Fact is granted.

B.        Permit Service on Defendants

A defendant may not be served until the court has reviewed the certificates of merit in camera and found, based solely on those certificates of merit, that there is reasonable and meritorious cause for the filing of the action against that defendant.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 340.1, subd. (i).)

Plaintiff’s counsel has executed separate Certificates of Merit for Doe 1 and Doe 2, and these Certificates of Merit comply with the requirements.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 340.1, subd. (g)-(h).)  The Certificate of Merit from a licensed mental health practitioner also complies with Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1, subdivision (g).

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Certificates of Merit and finds that there is reasonable and meritorious cause for the filing of the action against Doe 1 and Doe 2.  Accordingly, the request for permission to serve Doe 1 and Doe 2 is granted.

C.        Request to File Amended Complaint

A defendant must be named “Doe” in all pleadings and filings until there has been a showing of corroborative fact as to the charging allegations against that defendant.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 340.1, subd. (l).)  An application must include a certificate of corroborative fact executed by the plaintiff’s counsel declaring that the attorney has discovered one or more facts corroborative of one or more of the charging allegations against a defendant or defendants and setting forth the nature and substance of the corroborative fact.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 340.1, subd. (m).)  The court must review the application and the certificate of corroborative fact in camera.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 340.1, subd. (n).)  The court must order that the complaint may be amended to substitute the name of the defendant if, based solely on the certificate and any reasonable inferences to be drawn from the certificate, one or more corroborative facts of one or more of the charging allegations has been shown.  (Ibid.)

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Certificate of Corroborated Fact.  The Court cannot find that one or more corroborative facts of one or more of the charging allegations has been shown.  The attached exhibit does not clearly show, form a verifiable source, a connection between Perpetrator, Archdiocese, and School during the time period of the alleged abuse.

Accordingly, the request to file an amended complaint substituting the names of Doe 1 and Doe 2 is denied without prejudice.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 340.1, subd. (m) [application may be made at any time after the action is filed].)

D.        Plaintiff’s Fictitious Name

“‘[A] party may preserve his or her anonymity in judicial proceedings in special circumstances when the party’s need for anonymity outweighs prejudice to the opposing party and the public’s interest in knowing the party’s identity.’”  (Doe v. Lincoln Unified School Dist. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 758, 767, quoting Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp. (9th Cir. 2000) 214 F.3d 1058, 1068.)

Plaintiff alleges that the defendants were aware of the sexual abuse by a clergyman employed by the Archdiocese and assigned to the school.  Actions alleging childhood sexual abuse are appropriate circumstances for a plaintiff’s use of a pseudonym.  (See, e.g., Doe v. Bakersfield City School Dist. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 556.)  The Court finds that Plaintiff’s need for anonymity outweighs any prejudice and the public’s interest in knowing his identity.  Accordingly, the request is granted, and Plaintiff may proceed under the fictitious name “E.H.”

E.        Conclusion

The ex parte application is GRANTED IN PART.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit.  Parties intending to appear are encouraged to appear remotely and should be prepared to comply with Dept. 48’s new requirement that those attending court in person wear a surgical or N95 or KN95 mask.

         Dated this 7th day of December 2022