Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 22STCV38410, Date: 2023-04-11 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV38410 Hearing Date: April 11, 2023 Dept: 48
SUPERIOR
COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
|
C.P., Plaintiff, vs. DOE 1, et al., Defendants. |
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) |
[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION:
SEALING CERTIFICATES OF MERIT AND CERTIFICATE OF CORROBORATIVE FACTS; APPROVING
CERTIFICATES OF MERIT AND PERMITTING SERVICE ON DEFENDANTS; DENYING PERMISSION
TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO NAME DEFENDANTS; PERMITTING PLAINTIFF TO PROCEED UNDER
A FICTITIOUS NAME Dept. 48 8:30 a.m. April 11, 2023 |
On
December 9, 2022, Plaintiff C.P. filed this action against Doe Defendants, arising
from childhood sexual assault. On March 6,
2023, Plaintiff filed a motion 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. The Court Will Seal the 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. Plaintiff May Serve the 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, Doe 2, and Doe 3,
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, Doe 2, and Doe
3. Accordingly, the request for permission
to serve Doe 1, Doe 2, and Doe 3 is GRANTED.
C. Plaintiff May Not Yet File an Amended
Complaint Naming the Defendants.
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 declaration recites Plaintiff’s allegations
and does not reference any additional source of a fact that corroborates any of
the allegations.
Accordingly,
the request to file an amended complaint substituting the names of Doe 1, Doe 2,
and Doe 3 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 May Proceed Under a 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 scoutmaster for
the Boy Scouts of America. 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 “C.P.”
E. Conclusion
The
motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as set forth above.
On
March 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Related Case, identifying Case No. 21STCV13750
as possibly related. However, it does not
appear that Plaintiff also filed the Notice of Related Case in Case No. 21STCV13750. (See California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(d).) Plaintiff is ordered to file a Notice of Related
Case in the other case that identifies this case as possibly related and file a
courtesy copy of the Notice of Related Case in Department 11 (Judge Cunningham). Counsel should also notify the assigned judge
in Case No. 21STCV13750 that they have filed the Notice of Related
Case.
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 11th day of April 2023
|
|
|
|
|
Hon. Thomas D. Long Judge of the Superior
Court |