This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/18/2020 at 01:33:49 (UTC).

LOUISE HOLLAND VS DANA CARL DENTZEL ET AL

Case Summary

On 03/26/2018 LOUISE HOLLAND filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against DANA CARL DENTZEL. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are CHRISTOPHER K. LUI, DANIEL M. CROWLEY and STEPHEN M. MOLONEY. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9575

  • Filing Date:

    03/26/2018

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

CHRISTOPHER K. LUI

DANIEL M. CROWLEY

STEPHEN M. MOLONEY

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

HOLLAND LOUISE

Defendants, Respondents and Not Classified By Court

GUARDINIERI MARK

DENTZEL DANA CARL

DENTZEL PAUL

DOES 1-15

CARPENTIERI MARK J.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

STERN FREDRICK H. ESQ.

STERN FREDRICK HARVEY

Defendant Attorneys

BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA

BREMER KEITH G.

SULLIVAN JOHN

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL (SETTLEMENT))

10/16/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL (SETTLEMENT))

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL (SETTLEMENT)) OF 10/16/2020

10/16/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL (SETTLEMENT)) OF 10/16/2020

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

3/17/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER CONTINUING DEFENDANTS, DANA CARL DENTZEL, PAUL DE...) OF 03/12/2020

3/12/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER CONTINUING DEFENDANTS, DANA CARL DENTZEL, PAUL DE...) OF 03/12/2020

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER CONTINUING MOTION TO SEAL)

2/24/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER CONTINUING MOTION TO SEAL)

Motion to Seal - MOTION TO SEAL MOTION TO SEAL COURT FILE

1/22/2020: Motion to Seal - MOTION TO SEAL MOTION TO SEAL COURT FILE

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL (SETTLEMENT))

2/4/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL (SETTLEMENT))

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER PURSUANT TO NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT;)

9/3/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER PURSUANT TO NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT;)

Other - - FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

12/6/2018: Other - - FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion - Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

1/8/2019: Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion - Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

Other - - Other - DEFENDANTS, DANA CARL DENTZEL,PAUL DENTZEL AND MARK GUARDINIERI'S

11/16/2018: Other - - Other - DEFENDANTS, DANA CARL DENTZEL,PAUL DENTZEL AND MARK GUARDINIERI'S

Legacy Document -

10/3/2018: Legacy Document -

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

7/26/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

DECLARATION OF FREDRICK H. STERN RE: DUE DILIGENCE RE: SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT AND RELATED DOCUMENTS ON DANA CARL DENTZEL, AN INDIVIDUAL, AND PAUL DENTZEL, AN INDIVIDUAL

6/13/2018: DECLARATION OF FREDRICK H. STERN RE: DUE DILIGENCE RE: SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT AND RELATED DOCUMENTS ON DANA CARL DENTZEL, AN INDIVIDUAL, AND PAUL DENTZEL, AN INDIVIDUAL

APPLICATION FOR PUBLICATION

7/2/2018: APPLICATION FOR PUBLICATION

DECLARATION OF FREDRICK H. STERN RE: DUE DILIGENCE RE: SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT AND RELATED DOCUMENTS ON DANA CARL DENTZEL, AN INDIVIDUAL

7/2/2018: DECLARATION OF FREDRICK H. STERN RE: DUE DILIGENCE RE: SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT AND RELATED DOCUMENTS ON DANA CARL DENTZEL, AN INDIVIDUAL

ORDER FOR PUBLICATION

7/9/2018: ORDER FOR PUBLICATION

AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

5/24/2018: AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

48 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/16/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/16/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement))); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/16/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement)) of 10/16/2020); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2020
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Seal (File) - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/24/2020
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Seal (File) - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/24/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Motion of Defendants Dana Carl Dentzel, Paul Dentzel and Mark...) of 07/24/2020); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/24/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Motion of Defendants Dana Carl Dentzel, Paul Dentzel and Mark...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/20/2020
  • DocketNotice (Of July 24, 2020 Hearing); Filed by Dana Carl Dentzel (Defendant); Paul Dentzel (Defendant); Mark J. Carpentieri (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2020
  • Docketat 09:46 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
78 More Docket Entries
  • 06/18/2018
  • DocketNOTICE OF REJECTION APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR PUBLICATION

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/13/2018
  • DocketAPPLICATION FOR PUBLICATION

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/13/2018
  • DocketDeclaration; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/13/2018
  • DocketDECLARATION OF FREDRICK H. STERN RE: DUE DILIGENCE RE: SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT AND RELATED DOCUMENTS ON DANA CARL DENTZEL, AN INDIVIDUAL, AND PAUL DENTZEL, AN INDIVIDUAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/13/2018
  • DocketApplication for Publication; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2018
  • DocketAmendment to Complaint; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2018
  • DocketAMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/26/2018
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: 1. TORTIOUS INTERRUPTION AND TERMINATION OF UTILITY (ELECTRICITY) ;ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/26/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Louise Holland (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/26/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC699575    Hearing Date: July 24, 2020    Dept: 28

Motion to Seal Entire Court File

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. opposing papers have been filed.

BACKGROUND

On March 26, 2018, Plaintiff Louise Holland (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Dana Carl Dentzel, Paul Dentzel, and Mark Guardinieri for (1) tortious interruption and termination of utility (electricity), (2) tortious interruption and termination of utility (water), (3) tortious violation of Civil Code section 789.3(b), (4) violation of Civil Code section 1940.2, (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (6) negligent infliction of emotional distress, (7) trespass, (8) conversion, and (9) breach of implied covenant.

On May 24, 2018, Plaintiff filed an amendment to complaint, correcting Mark Guardinieri’s name to Mark J. Carpentieri.

On December 6, 2018, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint.

On August 27, 2019, the Court denied the parties’ proposed stipulation and order to seal court records.

On September 3, 2019, Plaintiff filed a notice of settlement of entire care.

On January 22, 2020, Defendants Dana Carl Dentzel, Paul Dentzel, and Mark Carpentieri (collectively “Defendants”) filed the instant motion to seal entire court file.

On February 4, 2020, pursuant to Defendants’ request, the Court continued the Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) to March 20, 2020.

On February 24, 2020, due to the closure of the department on March 5, 2020, the Court, on its own motion, advanced and continued the hearing on this motion to March 20, 2020.

On March 12, 2020, due to the closure of the department on March 20, 2020, the Court, on its own motion, advanced and continued the hearing to April 8, 2020.

On March 17, 2020, based on current conditions including the spread of COVID-19, the need for social distancing, and a state of emergency having been declared by Governor Newsom, the Court, on its own motion, advanced and continued the hearing to May 19, 2020.

On March 20, 2020, the Court continued the hearing to August 14, 2020.

On June 3, 2020, the Court advanced the hearing to July 24, 2020.

An Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) is set to be heard on October 16, 2020.

PARTYS REQUEST

Defendants request a court order sealing the entire court file in this action on grounds that there is both good cause and an overriding interest under CRC Rules 2.550 and 2.551 that warrant sealing the file.

LEGAL STANDARD

California courts have recognized a constitutional right of access to certain court documents grounded in the First Amendment.  (Overstock.com, Inc. v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 471, 484; NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178, 1208 fn. 25.)

California Rules of Court, rules 2.550 and 2.551 constitute the rules for filing court records under seal. California Rules of Court, rule 2.550, subdivision (c) provides that “[u]nless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open.”  “A record must not be filed under seal without a court order.”  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551, subd. (a).)  “The court must not permit a record to be filed under seal based solely on the agreement or stipulation of the parties.”  (Ibid.) California Rules of Court, rule 2.550, subdivision (d) states the following:

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; 

  1. The overriding interest supports sealing the record;

  1. A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed;

  1. The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and

  1. No less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.

“A party requesting that a record be filed under seal must file a motion or an 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 a declaration containing facts sufficient to justify the sealing.”  (Ibid.)  “The party requesting that a record be filed under seal must lodge it with the court under (d) when the motion or application is made, unless good cause exists for not lodging it or the record has previously been lodged under (3)(A)(i).  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551, subd. (b)(4).)  “Pending the determination of the motion or application, the lodge record will be conditionally under seal.”  (Ibid.)

DISCUSSION

Defendants move for a court order sealing the entire court file in this matter.

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that while Defendants move to seal the entire court file, Defendants have indicated that the court file consists of a complaint, a motion to strike, an amended complaint, and a motion to compel production of documents.  (Motion, p. 6:18-20.)  The court file also includes other documents such as the parties’ stipulation and order to seal the entire court file, the notice of settlement, various minute orders, various notices filed by the parties, and this motion and supporting documents. a sealing of the entire court file or only the sealing of the complaint, motion to strike, amended complaint, and motion to compel production of documents.

In any case, the Court finds that these documents have already been filed such that the right to seal these documents has been waived.  (Savaglio v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 588, 601.)  While Defendants did not file the complaint, amended complaint, and motion to compel production of documents, this does not change the fact that these documents are already a matter of public record such that the court can no longer entertain a motion to seal these documents.

Even if the right to seal had not been waived, the Court finds Defendants have failed to demonstrate the requisite overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record and supports sealing the record under CRC Rule 2.550(d). of potential injury to their professional and personal reputations based on unproven allegations.  An interest in preventing potential injury to Defendants’ reputation is insufficient to overcome the right of public access to the court file, especially when the allegations are unproven. As the overriding interest in preventing injury to reputation is based on unproven allegations, the Court also cannot find that a substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed.  The Court further finds that the request is not narrowly tailored given that Defendants appear to seek the sealing of the entire court record or sealing of entire pleadings and motions and not just the allegations Defendants take issue with. undertaken by Defendants as landlords, even if unproven.

The Court is unpersuaded by Defendants’ argument that they are not required to satisfy the constitutional standards pursuant to CRC Rules 2.550 and 2.551 and NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV) v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178.  Defendants base this argument on their assertion that the court records in this matter—i.e., the complaint, motion to strike, amended complaint, and motion to compel production of documents—are not documents that form “a basis for adjudication”.  However, the determination of whether the records are “a basis for adjudication” only applies to discovery materials.  CRC Rule 2.550 explicitly provides that the sealed records rules “do not apply to discovery motions and records filed or lodged in connection with discovery motions or proceedings,” but “do apply to discovery materials that are used at trial or submitted as a basis for adjudication of matters other than discovery motions or proceedings.”  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(a)(3) (emphasis added).)  The cases cited by Defendants—i.e., Overstock.com v. Goldman Sachs Gourp (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 471 and Mercury Interactive v. Klein (2007) 231 Cal.App.4th 60—also only discussed the applicability of the sealed records rules with respect to discovery materials.  (Overstock.com, supra, 231 Cal.App.4th at 482, 486, 492-97, 501; Mercury Interactive, supra, 231 Cal.App.4th at 73, 85 [discussing the exhibits attached to the complaint that consist of “raw discovery” materials].) As the complaint, motion to strike, and amended complaint are not discovery materials, the distinction does not apply.

As for the motion to compel production of documents, this is a discovery motion such that it appears Rule 2.550 does not apply. Regardless, Defendants have failed to even make a showing of good cause that this motion should be sealed. Defendants’ issue with the court file focuses on Plaintiff’s allegations which Defendants claim cast them in a very unfavorable light and may hurt their reputations unjustifiably. the discovery motion to obtain discovery responses fits into Defendants’ issue with Plaintiff’s allegations.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ motion to seal the entire court file is DENIED.

Defendants are ordered to give notice of this ruling.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.