Motion to file documents under seal
Here, while the Arbitration Agreement does not provide a specific Utah forum selection clause or Utah choice-of-law provision and instead references Utah and Utah law throughout the agreement, it cannot be said the Arbitration Agreement is “permeated” by unconscionability. It is clear the references to the Utah forum and Utah law, and the prevailing attorney fee provision are collateral to the central purpose of the arbitration agreement, i.e., the bilateral arbitration of employment disputes. Under its express terms, both Plaintiff and Defendant are equally bound by the arbitration agreement. (Johnson Decl., Ex.
A at p. 21 ¶ 10.1 and 10.2.) The Court does not find a systematic effort to impose overly harsh terms on the employee or Plaintiff. Absent the disputed provisions, it cannot be said the Agreement would be onesided, limited or otherwise unfair. In addition, the terms can be stricken without any need to rewrite or augment the Agreement. The interests of justice would be furthered by severance because it would enforce the mutuality of the obligation to arbitrate.
The Court therefore strikes all references to a Utah forum and Utah law, as well as paragraphs 11.1 and 11.5 of the arbitration agreement as set forth in Exhibit D of the Johnson Declaration, and GRANTS the motion to compel arbitration.
Counsel for Defendant shall provide notice of this ruling.
4. Uptown Newport Jamboree, LLC v. Newport Fab, LLC 18-973247 Before the court is a motion by Uptown Newport Jamboree, LLC (“Uptown”) for an order allowing it to file the following documents under seal: Motion for Summary Judgment (ROA 1076), Declaration of William A. Shopoff (ROA 1077) and Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (ROA 1072). The motion is DENIED, as set forth herein.
A party requesting a court record be filed under seal “must file a motion or an application for an order sealing the record.” Cal. R. Ct. 2.551(b)(1). “The motion or application must be accompanied by a memorandum and a declaration containing facts sufficient to justify the sealing.” Id.
The California Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment provides “a right of access to ordinary civil trial and proceedings.” (NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178, 1212.) The court further noted its belief that “the public has an interest, in all civil cases, in observing and assessing the performance of its public judicial system.” (Id. at 1210.) There is a presumption of openness in civil court proceedings. (Id. at 1217.) Therefore, it is up to this Court to determine if that presumption has been overcome. Courts must find compelling reasons, prejudice absent sealing and the lack of less-restrictive means, before ordering filed documents sealed. (
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
To grant a motion to seal, the court must expressly find that: (1) an overriding interest exists that overcomes the right of public access to the record; (2) the overriding interest supports sealing the records; (3)
a substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed; (4) the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and (5) no less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest. (CRC 2.550(d); McGuan v. Endovascular Technologies, Inc. (2010) 182 Cal. App. 4th 974, 988.)
Uptown argues the confidentiality provision in the lease, as well as an undefined financial right of privacy, supports an order sealing the three leases attached to the Shopoff declaration and references thereto in the motion for summary judgment and separate statement. However, a proposed sealing must also be narrowly tailored to serve the overriding interest, such as by sealing only portions of pleadings or redacting particular text that refer to the confidential information. (In re Marriage of Burkle (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1045, 1052, 1070.)
Based on the information provided, the court is unable to make the required express finding that the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored. For example, in the first paragraph of Exhibit 1 to Shopoff’s declaration, the document states the date of the lease and the names of the parties to the lease. There is no explanation in the declaration submitted as to why the names of the parties to the lease should be under seal. Similarly, there is no explanation as to why the address of the property which is the subject of the lease should be sealed.
Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.
Uptown is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
5. Thompson v. FCA US, LLC 24-1446312 Defendant FCA US, LLC’s (“Defendant”) unopposed motion for judgment on the pleadings as to plaintiff Taia Thompson’s (“Plaintiff”) Complaint is GRANTED.
Defendant moves for judgment on the pleadings as to the fifth cause of action for Fraudulent Inducement – Concealment on the basis it is barred by the statute of limitations, and it fails to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action against Defendant. (Civ. Proc. Code § 438(c)(B)(ii).)
A) Fraud is Barred By Statute of Limitations
The statute of limitations on a fraud cause of action is three years. (Civ. Proc. Code § 338(d).)
"When a plaintiff relies on a theory of fraudulent concealment, delayed accrual, equitable tolling, or estoppel to save a cause of action that otherwise appears on its face to be time-barred, he or she must specifically plead facts which, if proved, would support the theory." (Mills v. Forestex Co. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 625, 641.) "A plaintiff who fails to sufficiently plead such facts normally should be permitted to amend his or her complaint to do so." (Ibid.)
On 05/29/20, Plaintiff entered into a warranty contract with FCA regarding the Vehicle. (Complaint ¶ 7.) This allegation implies Plaintiff