Judge William A. Crowfoot, Case Number: 24NNCP00648, Date: 2025-01-13 Tentative Ruling

Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 24NNCP00648, Date: 2025-01-13 Tentative Ruling

Petitioner Nitish Walia (“Walia”) seeks an order pursuant to Civil Code § 1798.201 for an order stating that his name was unlawfully used in the incorporation of Nitish VisionQuest, LLC (“VisionQuest”). Walia contends he is the victim of identity theft and that in July 2024, he began receiving numerous credit card applications under VisionQuest’s name at his residence. Walia did not create this corporation and does not know who did.

A person who has learned or reasonably suspects that his or her personal identifying information has been used unlawfully, as described in subdivision (a) of Section 530.5 of the Penal Code, in a business entity filing, and has initiated a law enforcement investigation in accordance with subdivision (a) of Section 530.6 of the Penal Code, may petition the superior court in the county in which the person resides for an order, which may be granted ex parte, directing the alleged perpetrator of the act … if known, and the person using the personal identifying information in the business entity filing to appear at a hearing before the court and show cause for both of the following:

(a) Why the personal identifying information should not be labeled to show the information is impersonated and does not reflect the person’s identity.

(b) Why the personal identifying information should be associated with the business entity.

“If the court determines the petition is meritorious and there is no reasonable cause to believe that the victim’s personal identifying information has been used lawfully in the business entity filing, the court shall make a finding that the victim’s personal identifying information has been used unlawfully in the business entity filing and shall issue an order certifying this determination.” (Civ. Code, § 1798.202, subd. (b).) The Court shall then [o]rder the name and associated personal identifying information in the business entity filing to be redacted or labeled to show that the data is impersonated and does not reflect the victim’s identity.” (Id., subd. (c)(1).)

The Court notes that no proof of service is on file for the First Amended Petition and that the language of Civil Code section 1798.201 provides for an order to show cause, suggesting that due process must be given to the person accused of unlawfully using the personally identifying information to give them an opportunity to explain their use of that information. The Court acknowledges that it would be difficult to serve VisionQuest considering that Walia has purportedly been wrongfully named as the agent for service of process. However, the Code of Civil Procedure allows Walia to seek permission to serve VisionQuest through other means, such as service by publication (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.50) or substituted service by hand delivery on the Secretary of State (Corp. Code, § 1702).

Therefore, the Court declines to rule on the First Amended Petition at this time and CONTINUES the hearing to __________________ to allow Walia an opportunity to serve VisionQuest with the First Amended Petition.

William A. Crowfoot

Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.