ANN LEMBERG VS. MYKHALO HONCHARUK ET AL

Matter on Calendar for Wednesday, August 6, 2025, Line 5 [Part 1 of 2 of the tentative ruling], PLAINTIFF ANN LEMBERG'S Motion To File Amended Complaint As Jane Doe With Unopposed Motion From Regents Counsel, Stating "They Will Not Oppose".

Plaintiff Ann Lemberg seeks to file an amended complaint permitting her to appear as Jane Doe. A party may file an amended pleading without leave of court before an answer has been filed (Code Civ. Proc., Section 472(a)) but must seek leave of the court to proceed anonymously. The court denies leave for the reasons stated herein.

Generally a complaint must state the names of all parties to the action. (Code. Civ. Proc., Section 422.40.) Some statutes grant plaintiffs a right to keep their identities confidential, but apart from such instances, a plaintiff must seek leave of court to proceed anonymously. (Santa Ana Police Officers Assn. v. City of Santa Ana (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 296, 306-307.)

Because the First Amendment has a right of public access to court proceedings, there is a demanding test that a plaintiff must overcome to proceed anonymously: "Before a party to a civil action can be permitted to use a pseudonym, the trial court must conduct a hearing and apply the overriding interest test: A party's request for anonymity should be granted only if the court finds that an overriding interest will likely be prejudiced without use of a pseudonym, and that it is not feasible to protect the interest with less impact on the constitutional right of access.

In deciding the issue the court must bear in mind the critical importance of the public's right to access judicial proceedings. Outside of cases where anonymity is expressly permitted by statute, litigating by pseudonym should occur only in the rarest of circumstances." (Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 105, 111-112 [simplified].)

Lemberg provides only generalities. She states that her request is motivated by human rights and safety concerns, and she fears harassment if she is not permitted to proceed anonymously. No evidence is provided, and even if Lemberg's statement is considered as a declaration it would be too general and conclusory to overcome the public's right of access to court files.

Lemberg states that Regents' counsel have stated that they will not oppose her motion. There is no proof of service of the summons and the Regents have not yet appeared in the case. Regardless of the Regents' position, the parties may not stipulate to close off public access to court processes. (Tentative ruling continues in Part 2 of 2] | |