Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 22STCV28642, Date: 2023-02-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV28642    Hearing Date: February 21, 2023    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On September 1, 2022, Plaintiff P.H. filed this action against Doe 1, arising from childhood sexual assault.  On December 27, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s ex parte application to permit service on Doe 1.

On February 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed an ex parte application to permit amendment of the complaint to name the defendant.

At the February 9, 2023 hearing, the Court continued the hearing and ordered that any supplemental filing was to be submitted four court days prior to the hearing.  Plaintiff did not file anything else by the February 14, 2023 deadline.

A.        Seal Certificate of Corroborative Fact

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).)

The application does not specifically request to seal the Certificate of Corroborative Fact, which Plaintiff lodged with the Court.  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 Court sua sponte seals the Certificate of Corroborative Fact.

B.        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.  Counsel’s only support for the corroborative fact is Plaintiff’s declaration and the declaration of someone else confirming that Plaintiff has spoken about the allegations.

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

C.        Conclusion

The ex parte application is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

The documents lodged on February 6, 2023 are ordered SEALED.

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 21st day of February 2023