Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 22STCV28642, Date: 2022-09-26 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV28642 Hearing Date: September 26, 2022 Dept: 48
SUPERIOR
COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
|
P.H., Plaintiff, vs. DOE 1, Defendant. |
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) |
[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE APPLICATION
FOR AN ORDER SEALING CERTIFICATE OF MERIT, PERMITTING SERVICE ON DOE DEFENDANTS,
AND PERMITTING PLAINTIFF TO PROCEED UNDER A FICTITIOUS NAME Dept. 48 8:30 a.m. September 26, 2022 |
On
September 1, 2022, Plaintiff P.H. filed this action against Doe 1, arising from
childhood sexual assault. On September 16,
2022, Plaintiff filed an ex parte application to seal the certificates of merit,
permit service on Doe 1, and permit Plaintiff to proceed under a fictitious name.
A. Seal Certificates of Merit
A
plaintiff who is 40 years of age or older in an action arising from childhood sexual
assault must file 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).)
Because
records examined in camera must be filed under seal (California Rules of
Court, rule 2.585(b)), the request to seal Plaintiff’s Certificates of Merit is
granted.
B. Permit Service on Defendant
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
Certificates of Merit comply 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. Accordingly,
the request for permission to serve Doe 1 is granted.
C. 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 placed and kept her in foster care, where she was sexually
assaulted and abused by her uncle and foster parent, despite the defendants’ knowledge
of the abuse. 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 her identity.
Accordingly, the request is granted, and Plaintiff may proceed under the
fictitious name “P.H.”
D. Conclusion
The
ex parte application is GRANTED.
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 26th day of September 2022
|
|
|
|
|
Hon. Thomas D. Long Judge of the Superior
Court |