People v. Court Ventures CA4/3

Filed 7/21/23 P. v. Court Ventures CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, G061093 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 30-2019-01047183) v. OPINION COURT VENTURES, INC., et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Richard 1 J. Oberholzer, Judge. Affirmed.

1 Although the parties stated in their appellate filings that the appeal is from an order of Superior Court Judge Linda Marks, the record indicates that the appeal is from a judgment following an order granting summary judgment issued by Judge Oberholzer. The error may have occurred because Judge Marks presided over the matter earlier. (See People v. Experian Data Corp. (April 26, 2022) G060360 [nonpub. opn.].)

Mara W. Elliott, San Diego City Attorney, Mark Ankcorn and Kevin King, Deputy City Attorneys, and Blood Hurst & O’Reardon, Timothy G. Blood, Leslie Hurst and Paula R. Brown for Plaintiff and Appellant. The Vanderpool Law Firm, Douglas B. Vanderpool, Michael J. Fairchild and Brooke L. Bove, for Defendants and Respondents. * * * In this case of first impression, we are asked to determine whether Section 1798.82, subdivision (a) (section 1798.82(a)) of the Customer Records Act (CRA), Civil Code sections 17980 et seq., obligates former owners or licensees of computerized data containing personal information to provide notice to California residents after discovering or being notified of a data breach. As discussed below, we conclude section 1798.82(a) does not apply to former owners or licensees. The trial court thus properly granted summary judgment to respondents Court Ventures, Inc. (CVI) and Robert Gundling on the claim that they violated section 1798.82(a). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment against appellant, the People of the State of California. I FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. Summary Judgment Motion As an initial matter, we note that appellant did not provide a full and complete record on appeal. The complaint against respondents is not in the record, even as an exhibit to a declaration. Only respondents’ memorandum of points and authority in support of their motion for summary judgment is in the record. The actual motion, the separate statement of undisputed facts, the supporting declarations and the exhibits attached to the declarations, and respondents’ request for judicial notice are not in the record. Appellant’s opposition to the summary judgment motion, including a declaration in support of the opposition with 46 attached exhibits and a request for judicial notice, are