This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 09/27/2020 at 10:10:15 (UTC).

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY VS VINCENT SANTOS SALAZAR, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 09/27/2018 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against VINCENT SANTOS SALAZAR. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JON R. TAKASUGI. The case status is Other.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******2190

  • Filing Date:

    09/27/2018

  • Case Status:

    Other

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JON R. TAKASUGI

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY

Defendants

SALAZAR VINCENT SANTOS

PALERMO AYALA FELIX JOSE

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

MAGPAPIAN MANUEL MANUK

Defendant Attorney

KIM LEAH J.

 

Court Documents

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration New Declaration of Manuel M. Magpapian in Support of Application for Order for Publication

9/10/2020: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration New Declaration of Manuel M. Magpapian in Support of Application for Order for Publication

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion - Other Notice of Motion and Motion for Ord...)

9/3/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion - Other Notice of Motion and Motion for Ord...)

Memorandum of Points & Authorities - Memorandum of Points & Authorities

8/10/2020: Memorandum of Points & Authorities - Memorandum of Points & Authorities

Memorandum (name extension) - Memorandum Plaintiff's Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion to Seal

8/12/2020: Memorandum (name extension) - Memorandum Plaintiff's Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion to Seal

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

6/18/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion - Other Notice of Motion and Motion for Ord...)

6/23/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion - Other Notice of Motion and Motion for Ord...)

Answer - Answer

10/30/2019: Answer - Answer

Demand for Jury Trial - Demand for Jury Trial

10/30/2019: Demand for Jury Trial - Demand for Jury Trial

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees - Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

11/15/2019: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees - Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

3/17/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Order for Publication - Order for Publication for Felix

8/22/2019: Order for Publication - Order for Publication for Felix

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Declaration of Manuel M Magpapian

4/4/2019: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Declaration of Manuel M Magpapian

Notice of Rejection - Ex Parte Application Without Hearing - Notice of Rejection - Ex Parte Application Without Hearing for Publication re: Felix

4/18/2019: Notice of Rejection - Ex Parte Application Without Hearing - Notice of Rejection - Ex Parte Application Without Hearing for Publication re: Felix

Application for Publication - Application for Publication

7/10/2019: Application for Publication - Application for Publication

Notice of Entry of Dismissal and Proof of Service - Notice of Entry of Dismissal and Proof of Service

11/14/2018: Notice of Entry of Dismissal and Proof of Service - Notice of Entry of Dismissal and Proof of Service

Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

10/17/2018: Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

Civil Case Cover Sheet

9/27/2018: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Summons - on Complaint

9/27/2018: Summons - on Complaint

16 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/23/2020
  • DocketOn the Complaint filed by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company on 09/27/2018, entered Request for Dismissal with prejudice filed by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company as to the entire action

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/23/2020
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 10/26/2020 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 09/23/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/10/2020
  • DocketDeclaration New Declaration of Manuel M. Magpapian in Support of Application for Order for Publication; Filed by: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/03/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion - Other Notice of Motion and Motion for Ord...)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/03/2020
  • DocketHearing on Motion - Other Notice of Motion and Motion for Order Sealing Record scheduled for 09/03/2020 at 09:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 09/03/2020; Result Type to Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/12/2020
  • DocketMemorandum Plaintiff's Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion to Seal; Filed by: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/10/2020
  • DocketMemorandum of Points & Authorities; Filed by: Felix Jose Palermo Ayala (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2020
  • DocketNotice of Continuance; Filed by: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Plaintiff); As to: Vincent Santos Salazar (Defendant); Felix Jose Palermo Ayala (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/23/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion - Other Notice of Motion and Motion for Ord...)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/23/2020
  • DocketOn the Court's own motion, Hearing on Motion - Other Notice of Motion and Motion for Order Sealing Record scheduled for 06/23/2020 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion was rescheduled to 09/03/2020 09:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
28 More Docket Entries
  • 10/30/2018
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Plaintiff); As to: Vincent Santos Salazar (Defendant); Proof of Mailing Date: 10/06/2018; Service Cost: 70.00; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/17/2018
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Plaintiff); As to: Vincent Santos Salazar (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/17/2018
  • DocketOn the Complaint filed by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company on 09/27/2018, entered Request for Dismissal without prejudice filed by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company as to Vincent Santos Salazar

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/27/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/27/2018
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/27/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/27/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Plaintiff); As to: Vincent Santos Salazar (Defendant); Felix Jose Palermo Ayala (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/27/2018
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 03/26/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/27/2018
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Jon R. Takasugi in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/27/2018
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause - Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 09/30/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 18STLC12190    Hearing Date: September 03, 2020    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Thu., September 3, 2020 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: State Farm v. Salazar, et al. COMPL. FILED: 09-27-18

CASE NUMBER: 18STLC12190 DISC. C/O: 09-26-20

NOTICE: OK MOTION C/O: 10-11-20

TRIAL DATE: 10-26-20

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION FOR ORDER SEALING RECORD

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

RESP. PARTY: Defendant Felix Jose Palmero Ayala (in support of Plaintiff’s motion)

MOTION TO SEAL COURT RECORDS

(CRC RULE 2.551)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Motion for Order Sealing Record is GRANTED. The Declarations of Manuel M. Magpapian in Support of Application for Order for Publication of Summons filed on April 4, 2019 and July 10, 2019, are to be SEALED and Plaintiff is to refile redacted versions of the declarations within ten (10) days of this order.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: None filed as of September 1, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of September 1, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On September 27, 2018, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for subrogation against Defendants Vincent Santos Salazar (“Salazar”) and Felix Jose Palmero Ayala (“Ayala”). On October 17, 2018, Defendant Salazar was dismissed from the action without prejudice.

On April 4, 2019, Plaintiff filed an Application for Publication as to Defendant Ayala which, included a Locate and Asset Report with Defendant Ayala’s un-redacted social security number. After the first Application was rejected, Plaintiff filed a second Application for Publication as to Defendant Ayala, which also included the un-redacted report and social security number. On August 22, 2019, Plaintiff obtained an Order for Publication as to Defendant Ayala. On October 30, 2019, Defendant Ayala filed an Answer.

On November 1, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Order Sealing Record (the “Motion”). The Motion sought to seal the previously filed declarations in support of the applications for publication and to file redacted versions of those declarations. (Mot., p. 3-16.) No opposition was filed.

At the initial hearing on June 23, 2020, the Court noted that California Rules of Court, rule 2.551 pertained to the procedure for filing records under seal, not retroactively sealing them once filed. (6/23/20 Minute Order.) However, the Court continued the hearing to allow Plaintiff an opportunity to file supplemental papers addressing the Court’s ability to seal the declarations. (Id.)

On August 10, 2020, Defendant filed a Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal. Plaintiff filed its Supplemental Memorandum in Support of the Motion to Seal on August 12, 2020.

  1. Legal Standard

A party requesting that a record be filed under seal must file a motion or application for an order sealing the record. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551, subd. (b)(1).) The motion or application must be accompanied by a memorandum and declaration that provides sufficient facts to justify the sealing. (Id.)

“The Court may order that a record be filed under seal only if it expressly finds facts that establish:

(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 achieve the overriding interest.”

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550, subd. (d).)

In addition, California Rules of Court, rule 1.201 provides that the filing party is solely responsible for not including, or redacting, social security numbers from pleadings and other papers filed with the court to protect personal privacy and other legitimate interests. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 1.201, subds. (a)(1), (b).)

  1. Discussion

As noted above, Plaintiff seeks to retroactively seal the Declarations of Manuel M. Magpapian in Support of Application for Order for Publication of Summons filed on April 4, 2019 and July 10, 2019, and to file a redacted version of these declarations. (Mot., p. 3:9-16.)

In its supplemental papers, Plaintiff cites Cassidy v. California Board of Accountancy (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 620, 625, for the proposition that a court is permitted to seal a record even if it has already been filed and made part of a public record. (8/12/20 Plf. Supp. Memorandum, p. 2:13-21.) In Cassidy, a plaintiff’s evidence on appeal included tax returns and other financial information of a third-party company and its affiliates. (Id.) The defendant filed a motion to strike that evidence, which included an objection from the third-party company stating the plaintiff did not have permission to place that information in the public record. (Id.) The Court treated the third-party’s objection as a motion to seal those documents and granted the request. (Id.) Thus, Plaintiff has demonstrated the Court is permitted to retroactively seal records.

Plaintiff argues that protecting a social security number is incredibly important, as it is used by government entities, banks, and financial institutions to not only determine who a person is, but also to conduct important personal affairs. (Mot., p. 3:24-27.) The Court agrees.

The Court finds that Defendant has an overriding interest in protecting his personally-identifying information that overcomes the right of public access because there is no right of public access to Defendant’s social security number. This strongly supports sealing the record. In addition, a substantial probability exists that Defendant’s interest in keeping his social security number private will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed. Allowing it to remain listed in full on two publicly filed documents may lead to unauthorized use. Furthermore, the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored as the Court would only seal the Declarations of Manuel M. Magpapian in Support of Application for Order for Publication of Summons previously filed on April 4, 2019 and July 10, 2010. (Mot., p. 4:1-6.) Plaintiff will also file a redacted version of the declaration. (Id.) Notably, the proposed redactions are minimal as they only seek to redact a few instances where Defendant’s social security number is listed in full. Finally, there are no less restrictive means to protect Defendant’s social security as the declarations have already been filed with the Court and are available for public view at any time.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request to seal the Declarations of Manuel M. Magpapian in Support of Application for Order for Publication of Summons filed on April 4, 2019 and July 10, 2019, and to file redacted versions of those declarations is GRANTED.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Motion for Order Sealing Record is GRANTED. The Declarations of Manuel M. Magpapian in Support of Application for Order for Publication of Summons filed on April 4, 2019 and July 10, 2019, are to be SEALED and Plaintiff is to refile redacted versions of the declarations within ten (10) days of this order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 18STLC12190    Hearing Date: June 23, 2020    Dept: 25

MOTION TO SEAL COURT RECORDS

(CRC RULE 2.551)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Motion for Order Sealing Record is CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER 3, 2020 at 9:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Plaintiff must file and serve supplemental papers as requested herein. Failure to do so may result in the Motion being placed off calendar or denied.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: None filed as of June 17, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of June 17, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On September 27, 2018, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for subrogation against Defendants Vincent Santos Salazar (“Salazar”) and Felix Jose Palmero Ayala (“Ayala”). On October 17, 2018, Defendant Salazar was dismissed from the action without prejudice.

On April 4, 2019, Plaintiff filed an Application for Publication as to Defendant Ayala which, included a Locate and Asset Report with Defendant Ayala’s un-redacted social security number. After the first Application was rejected, Plaintiff filed a second Application for Publication as to Defendant Ayala, which also included the un-redacted report and social security number. On August 22, 2019, Plaintiff obtained an Order for Publication as to Defendant Ayala. On October 30, 2019, Defendant Ayala filed an Answer.

On November 1, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Order Sealing Record (the “Motion”). To date, no opposition has been filed.

  1. Legal Standard

A party requesting that a record be filed under seal must file a motion or application for an order sealing the record. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551, subd. (b)(1).) The motion or application must be accompanied by a memorandum and declaration that provides sufficient facts to justify the sealing. (Id.)

“The Court may order that a record be filed under seal only if it expressly finds facts that establish:

(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 achieve the overriding interest.”

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550, subd. (d).)

In addition, California Rules of Court, rule 1.201 provides that the filing party is solely responsible for not including, or redacting, social security numbers from pleadings and other papers filed with the court to protect personal privacy and other legitimate interests. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 1.201, subds. (a)(1), (b).)

  1. Discussion

Plaintiff brings the instant Motion pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 2.551, subdivision (b)(1). (Mot., p. 1.) Plaintiff seeks to seal and redact Defendant Ayala’s social security number from the Locate and Asset Report previously filed on April 4, 2019, and July 10, 2019, in support of Plaintiff’s Application for Publication. (Mot., p. 3.) Rule 2.551, however, specifically pertains to the procedures for filing records under seal. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 2.551.) (Emphasis added.) Nothing in that Rule indicates it can support an order to retroactively seal a record that has already been publicly filed.

In Hurvitz v. Hoefflin (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 1232, 1245, the Court of Appeals explained that “there can be no privacy with respect to a matter which is already public or which has previously become part of the ‘public domain.’ ” (Hurvitz v. Hoefflin (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 1232, 1245 (citing Sipple v. Chronicle Publishing Co. (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 1040, 1047); see also Savaglio v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 588, 593 [concluding that filing documents with the court before a motion to seal is granted waives the right to move for an order to seal documents].) The Court of Appeals, therefore, overturned the trial court’s order sealing a declaration because it makes little sense to seal information after the fact. (Id. at 1247.) In these circumstances, a trial court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a belated motion to seal records. (Savaglio, infra, at p. 593.)

However, the Court recognizes the importance and sensitivity of a social security number and the risks of it being included in public court documents. Thus, Plaintiff is ordered to file a supplemental brief regarding the Court’s ability to grant the relief it seeks.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Motion for Order Sealing Record is CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER 3, 2020 at 9:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Plaintiff must file and serve supplemental papers as requested herein. Failure to do so may result in the Motion being placed off calendar or denied.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.