Roe vs. Doe 1, Religious School

comply with valid deposition notices, including the subject notice that resulted in the discovery order. (Knafo Decl. at ¶¶ 41-46, Exhs. 29-32.) Abdullah has not opposed the reasonableness of the monetary sanctions sought or otherwise challenged that Cross- Complainants incurred these fees and costs as a result of his failure to comply with valid deposition notices.

Accordingly, Cross-Complainants are awarded $18,970.10, in reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, against Abdullah, only. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a).) The sanctions are payable within 90 days of the notice of ruling to Ghozland Law Firm.

Cross-Complainants are ordered to give notice of the ruling.

7. 2026-1549234 Plaintiff John VJP Roe (“Plaintiff”) seeks an order sealing Plaintiff’s Roe vs. Doe 1, Certificates of Merit and allowing Plaintiff to proceed under a Religious fictitious name. School Plaintiff’s complaint alleges he was sexually assaulted as a minor. Every plaintiff 40 years of age or older at the time the action is filed is required to file certificates of merit. (Code Civ. Proc., § 340.1, subd. (e).) “The court shall review the application and the certificate of corroborative fact in camera and, based solely on the certificate and any reasonable inferences to be drawn from the certificate, shall, if one or more facts corroborative of one or more of the charging allegations against a defendant has been shown, order that the complaint may be amended to substitute the name of the defendant or defendants.” (Code Civ.

Proc., § 340.1, subd. (m).) “The court shall keep under seal and confidential from the public and all parties to the litigation, other than the plaintiff, any and all certificates of corroborative fact filed pursuant to subdivision (l).” (Code Civ. Proc., § 340.1, subd. (n).)

Plaintiff’s motion to seal the Certificates is granted.

Due to the sensitive nature of the allegations of this case and Plaintiff’s right to privacy, Plaintiff’s request allowing him to proceed under a pseudonym is granted. (See, Doe v. Lincoln Unified School Dist. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 758, 766.)

Plaintiff shall give notice.

8. 2026-1550175 Defendant Hyundai Motor America’s motion to compel arbitration of Taylor vs. Plaintiff James Taylor’s claims is denied. Hyundai Motor America Defendant’s request for judicial notice is denied as it is unnecessary to ask the court to take judicial notice of materials previously filed in this case. “[A]ll that is necessary is to call the court’s attention to