Plaintiff v. Dr. Armand Newman

at this time. But allowing identifying information about plaintiff to be on the public record seems to defeat the purpose. At that point, the harm is done. Because of that, even though the court would deny the motion on normal grounds, the court will GRANT the motion and plaintiff may not only proceed anonymously going forward, but the prior filings will remain anonymous. If the Safe At Home status ever changes, though, plaintiff is instructed to inform the court without delay. The court is aware of plaintiff's request that it consider a declaration filed under seal.

That request is improper. It is made on six court days' notice--not ex parte. It is also in the form of new evidence in reply, which is not appropriate. Defendants have no opportunity to respond to that new declaration. The court has not opened the envelope containing the declaration and it is STRICKEN sight unseen. It will be returned to plaintiff. Defendants' objection to it is SUSTAINED. But that does not change the Safe at Home analysis above. The court emphasizes that the parties both need to do better.

Defendants disclosed plaintiff's identity in their opposition in a blatant disregard of the court's orders and in what the court can only believe was bad faith and an improper tactic by defense counsel. Plaintiff filed a faulty motion and tried to cure it in reply through means that are not authorized. Plaintiff's claim that it did not intend to gain a procedural advantage by filing new evidence in reply rings hollow. The court sees that plaintiff did request that the declaration be filed confidentially by motion dated August 31, 2026.

But that motion was not done through the reservation process and there is no reservation for it. Further, it is not clear that the document has been given to defendants. In their objection, defendants suggest that they have not seen it. If it was not served on the defense, that is nothing short of stunning. This court is not a star chamber; it does not hold secret hearings or rule based on secret evidence that the other party cannot see unless a true showing has been made that showing this to the other party would put plaintiff in significant jeopardy--such as setting forth the victim's address in a domestic violence case to the alleged abuser.

The court has not opened the envelope and will not open it. The evidence is STRICKEN and it will be returned to plaintiff unopened.

At issue today is a request for an order enforcing the prior TRO. The court went back and looked at the TRO file. The court sees that the original complaint was served by substituted service. However, the TRO application was not. The court had assumed--mistakenly (and the court is not blaming plaintiff)--that the original packet served by substituted service included information relating to the TRO, but there is no evidence that

it did. The only things on that POS are the summons and complaint. That is the court's fault; plaintiff did not make any contrary representation to the court. Even so, the declaration regarding notice of the TRO and OSC were only on Aaron Newman, who plaintiff states is counsel for defendant. The court well understands the familial relationship--Aaron Newman is the son of the person plaintiff claims to be in charge of the defendant, Dr. Armand Newman--but that is not enough. Until defendant actually appears, defendant must actually be served with all materials unless counsel is expressly authorized to accept service.

Because defendant was not served with the TRO, the court is not convinced that the TRO hearing comported with due process, and therefore the order must be VACATED. What the court will do is to set a new date for the TRO and OSC, and hopefully plaintiff can effectuate service on defendant in ample time. The court notes that the actual TRO and OSC were served on defendant in the same way as the complaint, but there still is not proof of notice of the hearing, and the notice is required to give the defense due process.

The court will discuss with plaintiff a new hearing date for the TRO to be held next week that gives plaintiff time to get the TRO/OSC served as well. In the meantime, though, the court must, on its own motion VACATE the existing TRO and OSC. Accordingly, the ex parte application on calendar for today is MOOT. The court apologizes for its error. | Home -->)" -->