ANN LEMBERG VS. MYKHALO HONCHARUK ET AL

Matter on calendar for Wednesday, August 13, 2025, Line 6, PLAINTIFF ANN LEMBERG's Motion For Reconsideration Of Temporary Ruling (Preliminary). (Part 1 of 2 for purposes of entry of tentative ruling.)

Disclosure: Judge Van Aken discloses that her spouse is employed as a tenured professor at a UC campus. He has no connection to the events of this case other than his employment. Disqualification is not required in this circumstance and the court concludes that a reasonable person aware of the facts would not reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to be impartial. (See Rothman, California Judicial Conduct Handbook (4th ed. 2017) 7:46 at pp. 464-465; CCP 170.1(a)(6)(A)(iii).)

Tentative Ruling: For the reasons stated herein, the motion for reconsideration is denied. The motion for reconsideration was filed and served fewer than 16 court days prior to hearing in contravention of Code of Civil Procedure section 1008, subdivision (a). The court nonetheless exercises its discretion to consider it on the merits.

"A motion for reconsideration must be based on new or different facts, circumstances or law, and facts of which the party seeking reconsideration was aware at the time of the original ruling are not new or different. In addition, a party must provide a satisfactory explanation for failing to offer the evidence in the first instance." (In re Marriage of Herr (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1468 [citation simplified].)

Plaintiff Ann Lemberg provides further detail about her case against the defendants here, but she does not offer any explanation for why these facts were not provided in her initial motion. In any event, the court maintains its view that proceeding anonymously is not warranted here.

As the court noted in its August 6 order, "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].)

Here, Lemberg raises issues concerning her medical treatment, destruction of records, clinical ethics, and other topics of great importance to the public. Lemberg does not offer any overriding interest that would weigh in favor of anonymity.

(Tentative ruling continues in part 2 of 2) =(301/CVA) | |