All of US or None - Riverside Chapter v. Hamrick

• Citation: 279 Cal.Rptr.3d 422,64 Cal.App.5th 751
• Decision Date: 26 May 2021
• Docket Number: D076524
• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Parties: ALL OF US OR NONE - RIVERSIDE CHAPTER et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. W. Samuel HAMRICK, Jr., as Clerk, etc., et al., Defendants and Respondents.

64 Cal.App.5th 751

279 Cal.Rptr.3d 422

ALL OF US OR NONE - RIVERSIDE CHAPTER et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,

v.W. Samuel HAMRICK, Jr., as Clerk, etc., et al., Defendants and Respondents.

D076524

Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1, California.

Filed May 26, 2021

A New Way of Life Reentry Project, Joshua E. Kim, CT Turney-Lewis; Social Justice Law Project, Peter E. Sheehan; DHF Law and Devin H. Fok, Glendale, for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Jones Day, Erica L. Reilleyand Erna Mamikonyan, Los Angeles, for Defendants and Respondents.

AARON, J.

I.INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs, All of Us or None–Riverside Chapter (All of Us or None),¹ Jane Roe, and Phyllis McNeal, filed this action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against defendants, Superior Court of California, County of Riverside (Riverside Superior Court), and its Executive Officer and Clerk, W. Samuel Hamrick, Jr. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants improperly maintain the Riverside Superior Court's records in criminal cases in various ways, including: (1) failing to properly destroy certain court records of old marijuana-related offenses, as required under Health and Safety Code section 11361.5 (" section 11361.5") (first cause of action); (2) allowing users of the Riverside Superior Court's public website to search the court's electronic index by inputting a defendant's known date of birth and driver's license number, in violation of California Rules of Court, rule 2.507 ( Rule 2.507 ) (third cause of action); and (3) disclosing protected criminal record information in violation of Penal Code section 13300 ² et seq. (fourth cause of action). Plaintiffs also alleged that the foregoing practices invade their right to privacy as embodied in the California Constitution (fifth cause of action). Plaintiffs claimed that they were entitled to declaratory relief (sixth cause of action) and a writ of mandate (seventh cause of action) to remedy these violations.³

The trial court sustained defendants' demurrer to plaintiffs' third (violation of Rule 2.507 ) and fourth (violation of section 13300 et. seq. ) causes of action without leave to amend.⁴ Thereafter, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and/or adjudication as to plaintiffs' first (violation of section 11361.5 ) and fifth (invasion of constitutional right to privacy) causes of action⁵ and granted defendants' motion for summary judgment as to plaintiffs' first (violation of section 11361.5 ), fifth (invasion of constitutional right to privacy), sixth (declaratory relief) and seventh (writ of mandate) causes of action.

Having disposed of all of plaintiffs' claims, the court proceeded to enter a judgment in favor of defendants.

On appeal, plaintiffs challenge the trial court's demurrer and summary judgment rulings. With respect to the former, in their primary briefing on appeal, plaintiffs contended that the trial court erred in sustaining defendants' demurrer to the third and fourth causes of action. As to the third cause of action, plaintiffs note that Rule 2.507(c) requires that courts exclude "date of birth" and "driver's license number" from a court's electronic court index. Plaintiffs maintain that they adequately alleged that defendants violate this rule of court by permitting the public to search the Riverside Superior Court's electronic criminal index by use of an individual's known date of birth or driver's license number. After considering the text, history, and purpose of Rule 2.507, we agree that the rule prohibits the Riverside Superior Court from allowing searches of its electronic criminal index by use of an individual's date of birth or driver's license number. We further conclude that the trial court erred in sustaining defendants' demurrer to this cause of action.

As to the fourth cause of action, plaintiffs initially claimed on appeal that they "stated facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for violation of ... sections 13302 and 13303."⁶ However, in response to our request for supplemental briefing, plaintiffs concede that sections 13302 and 13303 are penal provisions and that plaintiffs cannot maintain their fourth cause of action as presently alleged because California law bars "maintaining an action to enforce penal provisions."⁷ We accept plaintiffs' concession and conclude that the trial court properly sustained defendants' demurrer to this cause of action.⁸

Plaintiffs also raise several challenges to the trial court's summary judgment ruling. Plaintiffs contend that the court erred in denying their motion for summary adjudication of their first cause of action for violation of section 11361.5 pertaining to the obliteration of marijuana-related offense records and in granting defendants' motion for summary adjudication of that same cause of action. We agree with plaintiffs that undisputed evidence establishes that defendants' current obliteration practices violate section 11361.5 and that plaintiffs are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on this cause of action.

Plaintiffs further claim that the trial court erred in denying their motion for summary adjudication of their fifth cause of action for invasion of the right to privacy and in granting defendants' motion for summary adjudication of that same cause of action. We conclude that neither plaintiffs nor defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on plaintiffs' fifth cause of action.

Finally, because we are reversing the judgment with respect to several of plaintiffs' substantive causes of action (i.e., the first, third, and fifth causes of action), we must also reverse the trial court's grant of judgment as a matter of law on plaintiffs' remedial causes of action for declaratory relief (sixth cause of action) and injunctive relief (seventh cause of action). Accordingly, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.

II.PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In April 2017, All of Us or None and Jane Roe filed a first amended complaint / petition against defendants. In their first amended complaint / petition, plaintiffs brought seven causes of action including: violation of section 11361.5 (first cause of action); violation of Rule 2.507 (third cause of action); violation of section 13300 et seq. (fourth cause of action); invasion of constitutional right to privacy (fifth cause of action); declaratory relief (sixth cause of action); and petition for writ of mandate (seventh cause of action).

Defendants demurred to all of the causes of action. The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend as to the third and fourth causes of action, and overruled the demurrer as to the first, fifth, sixth and seventh causes of action.

In January 2018, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint adding McNeal as a plaintiff.⁹ In their second amended complaint / petition, plaintiffs brought four of the same causes of action as were alleged in their first amended complaint, including: violation of section 11361.5 (first cause of action); invasion of constitutional right to privacy (fifth cause of action); declaratory relief (sixth cause of action); and petition for writ of mandate (seventh cause of action).¹⁰

Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment and/or adjudication on the first cause of action for violation of section 11361.5 and the fifth cause of action for invasion of the constitutional right to privacy.¹¹ On the same day, defendants moved for summary judgment and/or adjudication on the first, fifth, sixth, and seventh causes of action.

The trial court denied plaintiffs' motion and granted defendants' motion. The court subsequently entered a final judgment in favor of defendants.

Plaintiffs timely appealed.

III.DISCUSSION

A. The trial court erred in sustaining defendants' demurrer to the third cause of action (violation of Rule 2.507 ) without leave to amend but properly sustained defendants' demurrer to the fourth cause of action (violation of section 13300 et seq. ); on remand, plaintiffs may ask the trial court for leave to amend their complaint to attempt to properly state a cause of action for improper disclosure of criminal offender record information

Plaintiffs claim that the trial court erred in sustaining defendants' demurrer with respect to both the third cause of action (violation of Rule 2.507 ) and the fourth cause of action (violation of section 13300 et seq. ) without leave to amend. We first provide an overview of the law and the factual and procedural background relevant to plaintiffs' claims. We then consider plaintiffs' arguments with respect to defendants' demurrer as to each cause of action.

1. Relevant law

a. The law governing demurrers and the applicable standard of review

In Hamilton v. Greenwich Investors XXVI, LLC (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1602, 126 Cal.Rptr.3d 174, the court outlined the following well-established law governing the review of an order sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend:

"A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint. We review the complaint de novo to determine whether it alleges facts sufficient to state a cause of action. For purposes of review, we accept as true all material facts alleged in the complaint, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. We also consider matters that may be judicially noticed. [Citation.] When a demurrer is sustained without leave to amend, ‘we decide whether there is a reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment: if it can be, the trial court has abused its discretion and we reverse; if not, there has been no abuse of discretion and we affirm.’ [Citation.] Plaintiff has the burden to show a reasonable possibility the complaint can be amended to state a cause of action." ( Id. at pp. 1608–1609, 126 Cal.Rptr.3d 174, fn. omitted.)

b. Substantive law

i. Rule 2.503

California Rules of Court, rule 2.503 ( Rule 2.503 ) specifies the manner by which electronic trial court records¹² are to be made available to the public. Rule 2.503(b) mandates that trial courts...