Westlake Services, LLC v. Ramon Batz

amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments; (2) State what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and (3) State what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1324(a).)

Furthermore, a separate declaration must also accompany the motion and must specify: (1) The effect of the amendment; (2) Why the amendment is necessary and proper; (3) When the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and (4) The reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1324(b).)

III. MOTION TO SEAL

Petitioner's Motion to Seal/Redact is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. A court may order records to be filed under seal when the following conditions are met: "(1)[t]here exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record[s]; (2) [t]he overriding interest supports sealing the record[s]; (3) [a] substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record[s are] not sealed; (4) [t]he proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and (5) [n]o less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest." (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 2.550(d).)

In ruling on a motion to seal, the court must identify (1) the specific information claimed to be entitled to protection from public disclosure, (2) the nature of the harm threatened by disclosure, and (3) any countervailing considerations. (H.B. Fuller Co. v. Doe (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 879, 894.) Therefore, in order to prevail on a motion to seal court records, the moving party must present a specific enumeration of the facts sought to be withheld and the specific reasons for withholding them. (Id. at 904.)

Here, while the Court takes seriously safety concerns as a valid basis for sealing, the Court notes that the incidents and proceedings on which petitioner relies to justify sealing of public records took place twenty-two years ago. It is not apparent from Petitioner's showing thus far that sealing of court records, in whole or in part, is either permissible or warranted. In addition, Petitioner's motion has not been served. Nor has petitioner lodged with the Court the proposed documents to be sealed, as is required by Rule of Court 2.551. For these reasons as well, the Court must deny the instant motion to seal.

POSSESSION

Date: 9/8/2026 (1:30 PM) Case: Westlake Services, LLC v. Ramon Batz (26STLC02566) TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff Westlake Services, LLC's Application for Writ of Possession is DENIED without prejudice for failure to serve.

With respect to an application for a writ of possession, at the times prescribed by CCP Sec. 1005(b), the defendant must be served with a copy of the summons and complaint, notice of application and hearing, and a copy of the application and supporting affidavits. (CCP Sec. 512.030.)

According to the court record, no proof of service has been filed with respect to any of the foregoing. Accordingly, the application is DENIED. | Home -->)" -->