In the Matter of 23CHCV00785

(Chatsworth Courthouse: Dept. F46) September 8, 2026 DEPARTMENT F46 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS Call the Courtroom Assistant at 818-576-8430 prior to 4:30 p.m. on the date prior to the hearing, or inform the Courtroom Assistant upon checking in. Case Number: 23CHCV00785 Hearing Date: September 8, 2026 Dept: F46 EX PARTE APPLICATION Plaintiff's ex parte application for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to a properly noticed motion for leave to amend pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324. The Court rules on the application without a hearing pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 166(a). No appearance is required.

ABSENCE OF EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES California Rules of Court, rule 3.1202(c) requires an applicant seeking ex parte relief to make an affirmative factual showing, through competent testimony based on personal knowledge, of irreparable harm, immediate danger, or another statutory basis for granting relief on an ex parte basis. Plaintiff has not made the required showing.

Plaintiff states that counsel learned of allegedly additional insurance coverage in August 2026, presented the proposed Second Amended Complaint to the clerk on August 28, 2026, and was advised that leave of court was required. Plaintiff does not identify any imminent deadline, approaching proceeding, irreparable harm, immediate danger, or other circumstance requiring the Court to act before a regularly noticed motion can be heard. The clerk's refusal to file an amended pleading without leave of court does not create an emergency. It reflects the ordinary procedural requirement that plaintiff obtain leave to amend. Likewise, the fact that the proposed pleading has been completed and lodged establishes that it is ready for consideration; it does not establish a need for immediate judicial action.

The reported absence of opposition does not excuse compliance with the requirements governing ex parte relief. Nonopposition may be relevant to the disposition of a noticed motion, but it does not convert an ordinary request for leave to amend into an emergency.

ADMONITION REGARDING EX PARTE PRACTICE Plaintiff's counsel is admonished that ex parte applications are reserved for matters requiring immediate judicial action because of irreparable harm, immediate danger, or another legally recognized exigency. Ex parte procedure is not an alternative means of shortening the notice period for an ordinary law-and-motion matter, even where the requested relief may be unopposed. This application does not present an appropriate use of ex parte procedure. Unnecessary ex parte applications consume limited judicial resources and congest an already full-capacity calendar, including when the Court is engaged in trial. Counsel shall reserve future ex parte applications for circumstances satisfying California Rules of Court, rule 3.1202(c), and shall proceed by regularly noticed motion when no genuine emergency exists.

FURTHER PROCEEDINGS This ruling does not determine the merits of plaintiff's request for leave to amend. Plaintiff may seek such relief through a properly noticed motion complying with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324 and all other applicable requirements. The Clerk is directed to give notice.

Case Number: 25CHCV01647 Hearing Date: September 8, 2026 Dept: F46 Dept. F-46 Hearing Date: September 8, 2026 Case Number: 25CHCV01647 MOTION TO FILE RECORDS UNDER SEAL Motion filed on June 12, 2026. MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Ramiro Tamayo RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants Starbucks Corporation, Jannifer Ujueta, Hatzhiry Martinez, and Michelle Rodriguez NOTICE: OK. RELIEF REQUESTED: Plaintiff Ramiro Tamayo seeks an order sealing the Conditionally Sealed Evidence Compendium, Volume 2, containing SA-REF A and SA-REF B, and the unredacted Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, and Declaration of Ramiro Tamayo in support of his Motion for Summary Adjudication to the extent those papers quote, summarize, or disclose information from SA-REF A or SA-REF B. RULING: Denied without prejudice.

BACKGROUND On May 13, 2025, Plaintiff Ramiro Tamayo (Plaintiff) filed the Complaint against Defendants Starbucks Corporation, Jannifer Ujueta, Hatzhiry Martinez, and Michelle Rodriguez (Defendants). On June 12, 2026, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to File Records Under Seal. On August 25, 2026, Defendants filed a Non-Opposition.

DISCUSSION Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open to the public, pursuant to a potent "open court" policy undergirded by the First Amendment and favoring the public nature of court proceedings. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(c); see NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178, 1199-10.) Consequently, pleadings, motions, discovery documents, and other papers may not be filed under seal merely by stipulation of the parties; filing under seal requires a court order. [1] (Cal.

Rules of Court, rule 2.551(a); see H.B. Fuller Co. v. Doe (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 879, 888.) In order to issue a sealing order, the Court must make expressly find that: (1) there exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record; (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