Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 23STCV14736, Date: 2023-08-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV14736    Hearing Date: August 14, 2023    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On June 23, 2023, Plaintiff M.R. filed this action against Doe 1, arising from childhood sexual assault.  Plaintiff later filed an ex parte application to seal the certificates of merit and certificate of corroborative facts, permit service, permit amendment of the complaint to name the defendant, 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 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).)

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 May File an 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 Corroborative Facts and finds that one or more corroborative facts of one or more of the charging allegations has been shown.  Accordingly, the request to file an amended complaint substituting the name of Doe 1 is granted.

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 placed and kept him in foster care, where he was sexually assaulted and abused at his foster mother’s home, despite the defendants’ knowledge of the abuse.  (Complaint ¶¶ 12, 24, 26-28.)  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 “M.R.”

E.        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.  If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

         Dated this 14th day of August 2023