Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal
Decl. ¶ 9.)
II. Discussion “The Court may in its discretion dismiss an action for delay in prosecution pursuant to this article on its own motion or on motion of the defendant if to do so appears to the court appropriate under the circumstances of the case.” (CCP § 583.410.) The failure to bring an action to trial within two years of filing is grounds for discretionary dismissal. (CRC 3.1340(a).) The papers supporting a motion to dismiss under § 583.410 must be filed and served at least 45 days prior to the hearing. (CRC 3.1342(a).)
As discussed above, the Non-Responsive Plaintiffs haven’t participated in this case since their counsel withdrew, three to four years ago. Defendants served the moving papers on April 28, 2026, more than 45 days before the scheduled hearing. The Non-Responsive Plaintiffs haven’t filed an opposition to the motion. “The failure of the opposing party to serve and file a written opposition may be construed by the court as an admission that the motion [to dismiss] is meritorious.” (CRC 3.1342(b).) For these reasons, the motion to dismiss is granted.
9 Quiros vs. Baby Brezza Enterprises LLC, a New York limited liability company,
2026-01539449
Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal
Plaintiff Eric Quiros’s motion to seal unredacted copies of (1) his own declaration and (2) his counsel’s declaration is DENIED. The clerk is ordered to publicly file the unredacted copies of these documents which are currently lodged with the Court.
GROUNDS FOR RULING
This is a consumer class action. Plaintiff and Defendant Baby Brezza Enterprises, LLC have agreed to settle the case on an individual basis, and Plaintiff has requested dismissal of his class claims without prejudice. CRC 3.770(a) requires that such a request be supported by a declaration that states whether consideration has been offered for the dismissal and describes that consideration in detail. Both Plaintiff’s declaration and his counsel’s declaration state the amount of his individual settlement. This amount is redacted from the publicly filed versions of the declarations. Plaintiff moves to permanently seal the lodged, unredacted versions.
A court may order a record to be filed under seal only if it expressly finds facts establishing:
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?”
2. The overriding interest supports sealing the record;
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.
The sole overriding interest identified by Plaintiff is the parties’ agreement to keep the individual settlement amount confidential. But “mere agreement of the parties alone is insufficient to constitute an overriding interest to justify sealing.” (McNair v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 25, 36.) Rather, the agreement must be coupled with “a specific showing of serious injury.” (Id., at p. 35.) Here, Plaintiff identifies no injury at all in his papers, let alone a specific, serious one. Because Plaintiff has not demonstrated the existence of an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record, the motion to seal is denied.
11 Tiley vs. Mercury General Corp.
2025-01521888
Defendant’s Demurrer to Amended Complaint
Defendant Mercury General Corp.’s demurrer to the first amended complaint (FAC) of Plaintiff Catherine Tiley is OVERRULED. Mercury shall file its answer by July 13, 2026.
I. Brief Background
This is an age discrimination lawsuit brought on behalf of a putative class. As alleged in the FAC, Tiley is a 65-year-old Facebook user interested in exploring new insurance policies and opportunities. She asserts that Facebook collects detailed biographical information on its users, including their ages. She alleges that Facebook’s advertising platform allows its advertising clients, such as Mercury, to use this biographical information to target users, ensuring that only the potential customers the advertiser wishes to target see an ad.
She alleges that Mercury offered its ads only to persons between the age of 25 and 54, which excluded older customers like her. She claims that her age-based non-receipt of Mercury’s advertising denied her the chance to learn about the insurance products Mercury offered. Finally, she alleges that Facebook has discriminated on the basis of age, and Mercury has aided and abetted Facebook. Based on these allegations, she brings claims for age discrimination under the Unruh Act