Courthouse News Service v. Michael Planet
Filing
77
NOTICE OF LODGING filed [Updated Proposed] Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint re MOTION to Dismiss Amended Complaint #61 (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A-[Updated Proposed] Order)(Matteo-Boehm, Rachel)
Exhibit A
1 Rachel E. Matteo-Boehm (SBN 195492)
2 rachel.matteo-boehm@bryancave.com
Roger Myers (SBN 146164)
3 roger.myers@bryancave.com
4 Leila C. Knox (SBN 245999)
leila.knox@bryancave.com
5 BRYANCAVELLP
6 560 Mission Street, 25th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105-2994
7 Telephone: (415) 675-3400
8 Facsimile: (415) 675-3434
"''-z"'00
ro-Z
'" .,
., '"
.,,,,
~"-
9 Jonathan G. Fetterly (SBN 228612)
10 j on.fetterly@bryancave.com
BRYAN CAVE LLP
11 120 Broadway, Suite 300
12 Santa Monica, CA 90401-2386
Telephone: (310) 576-2100
13 Facsimile: (310) 576-2200
14
Attorneys for Plaintiff
15 COURTHOUSE NEWS SERVICE
oZ
<0'"
",en
16
17
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
WESTERN DIVISION
18
19
20
Case No. CVII-08083
Courthouse News Service,
Plaintiff,
[UPDATED PROPOSED] ORDER
DENYING DEFENDANT'S
MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED
COMPLAINT
21
22
23
24
vs.
Michael Planet, in his official capacity as
Court Executive Officer/Clerk of the
Ventura County Superior Court,
Date: August 18,2014
Time: 10 a.m.
Judge: Hon. Manuel L. Real
Defendant.
25
R (MANx)
26
27
28
1
[UPDATED PROPOSED]
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS
Case No. CVII-08083
R (MANx)
1
The June 24,2014, Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint of Defendant
2 Michael Planet, in his official capacity as Court Executive Officer/Clerk of the
3 Ventura County Superior Court ("Defendant), came on for hearing on August 18,
4 2014. Having considered the papers submitted by the parties, the arguments of
5 counsel, and good cause appearing, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows:
(1)
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint is DENIED. The
6
7 Court finds that Plaintiff Courthouse News Service has stated a plausible First
8
9
10
0:"
0",
0",
--''''
,
lL
'O
IO
c..""~
11
12
--,'O"
--'''''''
W
...:
«
~~o
U 0: ,...0
z'" 0
«
>-z- '"
0:00
w-z
'"«
"'a:
~lL
oZ
(0«
'O'"
13
14
Amendment claim for relief.
(2)
As a preliminary matter, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that Plaintiff
has stated a plausible claim for relief: "[T]here is no question that CNS itselfhas
alleged a cognizable injury caused by Ventura County Superior Court's denial of
timely access to newly filed complaints."
Courthouse News v. Planet, 750 F.3d 776,
788 (9th Cir. 2014). As such, the doctrines of "law of the case" and the "rule of
mandate" bar Defendant's argument that unlimited civil complaints filed in the
Ventura County Superior Court are not "judicial records" to which a right of access
15 attaches under the First Amendment "until they are considered by the court and
16 made the subj ect of some judicial decision." Def.' s MP A 10-11.
17
(3)
Even if the law of the case and the rule of mandate did not bar
18 Defendant's motion, the Court finds that Defendant has failed to show, as a matter
19 of law, that Plaintiff has not stated a plausible claim for relief.
20
(4)
Moreover, the Court further finds that as a matter of law, there is a
21
presumptive First Amendment right of access to newly filed civil complaints from
22
the time of filing, irrespective of whether the complaint has been processed,
23
reviewed, and/or entered into the court's official records. Further, the court finds
24
that as a matter of law, there is a presumptive First Amendment right of access
25
26
27
28
irrespective of whether the court has taken action in the case or the defendant has
been served. The First Amendment right of access to newly-filed complaints is
confirmed by application of the "experience" and "logic" analysis. The two prongs
of this analysis are not "separate inquiries," In re Copley Press, 518 F.3d 1022, 1026
2
[UPDATED PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS
Case No. CVII-08083
R (MANx)
1 n.2 (9th Cir. 2008), but rather are "complementary considerations."
Press-
2 Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1, 8 (1986). The tradition need only be
3 long enough so that the "tradition of accessibility implies the favorable judgment of
4
experience."
Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596, 605 (1982)
5 (Brennan, J., concurring). In this case, the allegations in Plaintiffs Amended
6 Complaint and the authorities provided by Plaintiff in its opposition to the motion to
,
7
8
9
10
11
0:..-
0",
0",
--'N
u-.
,,- ... '"
~
IO
12
--,"'..-
--,N",
W ...:
«
~~()
00:
13
-
... 0
Z(j)O
'" '"
rZ-
0: 0 0
(D-Z
'" -c
"'0:
:EUoZ
W'"
-0
0
Zen
~z~
"'00
CD-Z
-Z"" '"
"'O()
ro-Z
'" -c
"''''
i"-
13 Dated:
14
,2014
The Honorable Manuel Real
Judge of the U.S. District Court
Central District of California
15
OZ
W""
",(J)
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
[UPDATED PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS
Case No. CVII-08083
R (MANx)
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?