Judge Yolanda Orozco, Case 19STCV04161 2023-02-07 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Yolanda Orozco, Case: 19STCV04161, Date: 2023-02-07 Tentative Ruling

Counsel may submit on the tentative ruling by emailing Dept. 31 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. The email address is smcdept31@lacourt.org. Please do not call the court to submit on the tentative. Please do not submit to the tentative ruling on behalf of the opposing party. Please do not e-mail the Court if you plan to appear and argue.

In deciding whether to submit on the tentative ruling or attend the hearing and present oral argument, please keep the following in mind:

The tentative rulings authored by this court reflect that the court has read and considered all pleadings and evidence timely submitted to the court in connection with the motion, opposition, and reply (if any). Because the pleadings were filed, they are part of the public record.

Oral argument is not an opportunity to simply regurgitate that which a party set forth in its pleadings. Nor, is oral argument an opportunity to "make a record" when there is no court reporter present and the statements and arguments of counsel are already part of the record because they were set forth in the pleadings. Finally, simply because a party or attorney disagrees with the court's analysis and ruling or is not satisfied with it does not necessarily warrant oral argument when no new arguments will be articulated.

If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify all other parties email that you will not appear at the hearing. 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 motions. If all parties to the motion submit, this tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date and it will be memorialized in a minute order. This tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such document will be considered by the Court.

**Tentative rulings on Motions for Summary Judgment will only be available for review in the courtroom on the day of the hearing.

Case Number: 19STCV04161 Hearing Date: February 7, 2023 Dept: 31

MOTION TO UNSEAL

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants’ Motion to Unseal the two-page Unlawful Detainer Stipulation and Judgment filed on November 16, 2018, in the underlying Los Angeles Superior Court case captioned Elvira Vargas, Trustee of the Vargas Family Revocable Living Trust v. Deandre Vaughns (Case No. 18STUD10445) is GRANTED.

Background

On February 4, 2019, DeAndre Vaughns, Danielle Watkins, DeAndre Vaughns, Jr., and DreDann Vaughns (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) initiated the present action by filing a Complaint against Las Aguilas Properties, LLC and Does 1 through 50. Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability; (2) Breach of Statutory Warranty of Habitability; (3) Breach of the Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment; (4) Negligence; (5) Violation of Civil Code Section 1942.4; and (6) Private Nuisance.

Pending before this Court are a motion for terminating sanctions, a motion to bifurcate, and a motion for summary adjudication.

At issue is whether the sealed Unlawful Detainer Stipulation and Judgment filed on November 16, 2018, in the underlying Los Angeles Superior Court case captioned Elvira Vargas, Trustee of the Vargas Family Revocable Living Trust v. Deandre Vaughn (Case No. 18STUD10445) bars Plaintiff’s habitability causes of action.

On January 09, 2023, Defendants moved to unseal the Judgment. No opposition has been filed.

The Motion is now before the Court.

Legal Standard

California Rules of Court, rule 2.551 subdivision (h)(2) states:

“(1) A sealed record must not be unsealed except on order of the court.

(2) A party or member of the public may move, apply, or petition, or the court on its own motion may move, to unseal a record. Notice of any motion, application, or petition to unseal must be filed and served on all parties in the case. The motion, application, or petition and any opposition, reply, and supporting documents must be filed in a public redacted version and a sealed complete version if necessary to comply with (c).

(3) If the court proposes to order a record unsealed on its own motion, the court must give notice to the parties stating the reason for unsealing the record. Unless otherwise ordered by the court, any party may serve and file an opposition within 10 days after the notice is provided and any other party may file a response within 5 days after the filing of an opposition.

(4) In determining whether to unseal a record, the court must consider the matters addressed in rule 2.550(c)-(e).

(5) The order unsealing a record must state whether the record is unsealed entirely or in part. If the court's order unseals only part of the record or unseals the record only as to certain persons, the order must specify the particular records that are unsealed, the particular persons who may have access to the record, or both. If, in addition to the records in the envelope, container, or secure electronic file, the court has previously ordered the sealing order, the register of actions, or any other court records relating to the case to be sealed, the unsealing order must state whether these additional records are unsealed.”

(Id.)

Discussion

Defendants have moved to unseal the Judgment filed in the unlawful detainer action so that the Court may consider if Plaintiff’s habitability issues are barred by the prior Unlawful Detainer Action.

For the Court to address the pending motions on their merits, the Court agrees that the two-page Unlawful Detainer Stipulation and Judgment should be unsealed. This would allow the Court and all parties involved in this action to know the specific language and terms of the Unlawful Detainer Stipulation and Judgment and be able to address the specific issues raised by the Judgment.

The Plaintiffs have not filed an opposition to this motion. Additionally, in other motions, Plaintiffs have taken the position that the unlawful detainer action does not bar the Plaintiffs’ habitability causes of action. Neither party has stated that access to the Unlawful Detainer Stipulation and Judgment should remain restricted once it is unsealed.

Accordingly, the Defendants’ motion to unseal the Unlawful Detainer Stipulation and Judgment is GRANTED.

Conclusion

Moving party to give notice.