Aghawani vs. Vershinin Dental Corporation

Cross-Defendants’ demur to each cause of action in the cross-complaint is well-taken. Cross- Complainant failed to oppose the demurrer. As such, Cross-Complainant implicitly conceded the demurrer’s merit. (See Herzberg v. County of Plumas (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1, 20.)

Cross-Defendants shall give notice.

305 Aghawani vs. Before the Court is a continued hearing on plaintiff Vershinin Lamis Aghawani’s Motion to Place Documents Dental Under Seal. The motion is DENIED as set forth Corporation herein.

This is the third hearing on the instant motion. In the Court’s Minute Orders for the 5/18/26 and 7/6/26 hearings, the Court noted deficiencies in the moving papers and continued the hearings to allow Aghawani to remedy the problems. In the 7/6/26 Minute Order, the Court stated

“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 instant motion is brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §367.3. Plaintiff states she is “an active participant in the Secretary of State’s confidential address program, Safe at Home.” (ROA 62.) She also states that her program identification number is 3763. (ROA 60.)

“On June 26, 2026, the plaintiff filed a “Notice of Lodging of Redacted Documents” (ROA 76.) and concurrently lodged copies of the documents with redactions. The Court has reviewed the proposed redactions. On all documents identified in ROA 76, except for ROA 21, the plaintiff has redacted her

name, address, email and phone number. The Court finds the redactions of this plaintiff’s “identifying characteristics” (as defined in Code of Civil Procedure §367.3(a)(1)) appropriate to justify sealing the documents and that the redactions are sufficiently narrowly tailored.

“However, on ROA 21, the redaction of the defendant’s file number and settlement offer are not appropriate for sealing.

“Additionally, Code of Civil Procedure §367.3(c) requires that: “In an action filed under this section, the plaintiff shall state in the caption of the complaint ‘ACTION BASED ON CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 367.3.’ ” The proposed redacted complaint does not contain this statement in the caption.

“Finally, plaintiff will need to submit a proposed order on Judicial Council Form SH-001 which lists her pseudonym (Jane Doe), her address to be contained in the public record, as well as a listing of the documents to be sealed as referenced in the Notice of Lodging at ROA 76.

“Accordingly, the hearing on the motion is continued to August 17, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. in Dept. C24 to allow plaintiff to correct the deficiencies listed herein. All further documents must be filed not less than 14 calendar days prior to the continued hearing date.”

Aghawani has not filed any further documents. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.

Also on calendar is an Order to Show Cause (OSC) as to why the complaint should not be dismissed. The Court initially set OSC in its 5/18/26 Minute Order at which time Aghawani was ordered to show cause as to why the complaint should not be

dismissed for failure to serve the defendant as required by Rule 3.110 on July 6, 2026. On 7/6/26, the Court continued the OSC and stated in the Minute Order: “the hearing on the Order to Show Cause as to why the complaint should not be dismissed for failure to serve the defendant as required by Rule 3.110 is continued to August 17, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. in Dept. C24. Any evidence submitted in response to the OSC is required to be filed 14 calendar days prior to the hearing.”

Aghawani has not filed a response to the OSC and the defendant has still not been served. Accordingly, the complaint is DISMISSED, without prejudice.

The Clerk will give notice.

306 White vs. Before the Court is the Demurrer filed on 5/20/26 Castagno by Defendant Joseph Castagna, Esq. (Defendant) as to the First Amended Complaint (FAC) filed on 11/19/25 by Plaintiff Russell White (Plaintiff). The Demurrer is directed to all four causes of action in the FAC.

The Demurrer as to the First Cause of Action is SUSTAINED. This Court previously ruled that the claim was time-barred as pled, as the alleged occurrence was in 2018. (ROA 26; 10/27/25 M.O.) Plaintiff argues that new facts are alleged in the FAC to show tolling under C.C.P. § 340.6(a). But he has failed to plead facts to support that assertion.

Actual injury is alleged to have occurred in 2018. (FAC ¶ ¶12-15.) Tolling based on C.C.P. § 340.6(a)(1) is thus not adequately alleged. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant continued to represent him as to the same subject matter after 2018, but has pled no facts to show that this is so. In addition, Plaintiff here asserts (Opposition, p. 4) that when he attempted to discuss the subject agreement with