Tentative Ruling
Re: ????????????????? ?????????? Saddouq v. California Bank & Trust
Fresno Superior Court Case No. 16CECG02693
Hearing Date: ????????? January 31, 2017 (Department 501)
Motion: ??????????????????? by plaintiff for leave to file First Amended Complaint
Tentative Ruling:
?To deny without prejudice to a motion which complies with the California Rules of Court.
To order that defendant file a motion to seal the declaration of Wachtel filed January 17, 2017 pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rules 1.201 and 2.550 et seq., on or before February 10, 2017, along with a properly redacted Wachtel declaration.? The hearing for the motion to seal will be on February 23, 2017 at 3:30 p.m. in this Department.
Explanation:
- The Motion to Amend
The motion did not include the proposed amended pleading or otherwise comply with the California Rules of Court, Rules 3.1112 and 3.1324.? It is not possible for the Court to assess whether the proposed pleading is permissible without seeing it.
- Need for Motion to Seal?
The Declaration of defense counsel filed on January 17, 2016 contains an unredacted Social Security Number for plaintiff in the exhibits.? California Rules of Court, Rule 1.201, states that such numbers are private, and that they must be redacted where contained in papers filed in the Court?s public file.? The law has long recognized the need for confidential treatment of such information.? Copley Press, Inc. v. Superior Court (1991) 228 Cal. App. 3d 77, 80-81; Civil Code section 1798.85; and Teamsters Local 856 v. Priceless, LLC (2003) 112 Cal. App. 4th 1500, 1512-1513.
To rectify this error, the Court requires that defendant file a motion to seal that declaration pursuant to Rules of Court, Rules 2.550 et seq. on or before February 10, 2017.? A substitute declaration shall be filed that same day which has the number redacted.? The motion will be heard on February 23, 2017 at 3:30 p.m. in this Department.
- Claim of Illegal Conduct
Defendant contends that the person its counsel spoke to about this case on behalf of plaintiff is engaging in a breach of Business & Professions Code section 6126, citing Drake v. Superior Court (1994) 21 Cal. App. 4th 1826.? That case found that where a person purports to make a court appearance on behalf of another, that person is engaging in the practice of law.? It found that the activities listed in then Probate Code section 2494 did not, however, constitute the practice of law, and that therefore there was no conflict between the two statutes.
The current power of attorney act is found at Probate Code section 4459.? As with the prior section, it permits one with a power of attorney to ?execute and file? certain documents, including the ability to verify pleadings.? The contention by defendant that signing pleadings is contrary to law conflicts with the statute and authority cited.? While Mr. Masad may not appear in Court on behalf of plaintiff, the contention he may not sign a motion is not well-taken.? He should be clear that he is signing on behalf of plaintiff.? Plaintiff need make his own court appearances, which can be done via Courtcall if he is absent from the country.
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.
Tentative Ruling
Issued By: ????????????????MWS???????? on 01/30/17
(Judge?s initials) ?????? (Date)