Tentative Ruling: Darryl Wayne Genis vs Daniel Henry Genis et al
Case Number
25CV07144
Case Type
Hearing Date / Time
Mon, 04/06/2026 - 10:00
Nature of Proceedings
Demurrer; Motion: Seal
Tentative Ruling
Darryl Wayne Genis v. Daniel Henry Genis, et al.
Case No. 25CV07144 Genis v. Genis
Hearing Date: April 6, 2026
HEARING: 1. Motion of Defendant Daniel Henry Genis to Seal Records
2. Defendant Daniel Henry Genis’ Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint
ATTORNEYS: For Plaintiff Darryl Wayne Genis: Self-Represented
For Defendant Daniel Henry Genis: Ashley R. Fickel, Kyle R. Besa, Stinson LLP
For Defendant Guy Harlen Genis: No appearance
For Defendant Jennifer Genis: No appearance
TENTATIVE RULING:
- The motion of defendant Daniel Henry Genis to seal records is denied.
- Daniel Henry Genis shall comply with California Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)(6). Should the court not be notified by Daniel Henry Genis that the lodged records are to be filed unsealed within 10 days of this order, the clerk of the court shall return the lodged documents.
- Defendant Daniel Henry Genis’ demurrer to complaint is continued to June 8, 2026.
Background:
This action commenced on November 14, 2025, by the filing of the complaint by plaintiff Darryl Wayne Genis (plaintiff) against defendants Daniel Henry Genis (Daniel), Guy Harlen Genis (Guy), and Jennifer Genis (Jennifer) (collectively “defendants”) for declaratory and injunctive relief. (Note: as the parties have common surnames the court will refer to the defendants, and some other individuals, by their given names for clarity. No disrespect is intended.)
Relevant here is that the complaint is not filed under seal and is not a document that Daniel requests be made confidential.
As alleged in the complaint:
Plaintiff filed a civil fraud action against each of the defendants in Case No. 22CV03483. (Compl., ¶ 1.)
Case No. 22CV03483 concluded with a settlement agreement on December 18, 2023, wherein Daniel agreed to pay the sum of $400,000.00 directly to Jackson Daniel Genis (Jackson) and Gillian April Genis (Gillian). (Compl., ¶ 3.) The case was thereafter dismissed. (Ibid.)
In exchange for the $400,000.00 settlement amount, which was only paid to Jackson and Gillian, plaintiff, Jackson, Gillian and Cheryl Genis-Markham all agreed to waive any claim they might have in any estate assets of Arline Genis. (Compl., ¶ 4.)
However, Daniel only appeared in Case No. 22CV03483 as an individual defendant and never appeared as a representative of the Estate of Arline Genis or the Arline Genis Trust and had no authority to enter into agreements affecting the Estate of Arline Genis or the Arline Genis Trust. (Compl., ¶ 5.)
Guy appeared in Case No. 22CV03483 as an individual defendant only , and never made an appearance in the case as a representative of the Estate of Arline Genis or the Arline Genis Trust. (Compl., ¶ 6.)
Jennifer never made any appearance in Case No. 22CV03483. (Compl., ¶ 7.)
No appearance was ever made by a representative of the Arline Genis Trust or the Estate of Arline Genis in Case No. 22CV03484, and therefore, as a non-party, the Arline Genis Trust is not bound by the settlement agreement. (Compl., ¶ 8.)
The complaint then quotes several portions of the settlement agreement.
By way of his prayer for relief, plaintiff seeks a declaration that:
“1 . The provisions contained within paragraphs 3 A and B of the Settlement agreement in Case Number 22-CV-03483 which purport to preclude Darryl Genis, Jackson Genis, Gillian Genis and Cheryl Genis-Markham be declared to be void or otherwise invalid because said provision violates public policy, because it frustrates the intent of Arline Genis in creating the Arline Genis Trust, and because Defendant Daniel Genis had no authority to bind the Arline Genis Trust; and because Defendant Guy Genis violated his fiduciary duties under the Arline Genis Trust; and because Jennifer Genis violated her fiduciary duties (if any) under the Arline Genis Trust; and
“2. All of the other terms, conditions and provisions of the Settlement Agreement in Case Number 22-CV-03483 shall remain in full force and effect to the same extent as if that part declared void or invalid had never been incorporated in the Agreement and in such form, the remainder of the Agreement shall continue to be binding upon the Parties.” (Compl., p. 9, ll. 1-13.)
Daniel now demurs to the complaint and moves to have the settlement agreement, as well as the points and authorities in support of his demurrer, sealed.
Plaintiff opposes the demurrer and the motion to seal.
As it is a preliminary matter to the hearing on the demurrer, the motion to seal will be addressed first.
Analysis:
Motion to Seal
As noted above, Daniel seeks to have the settlement agreement and his points and authorities in support of demurrer filed under seal. He argues: “(1) There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record; (2) The overriding interest supports sealing the record; and (3) A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed.” (Motion, p. 4, ll. 7-10.) Daniel further argues that the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored, and that no less restrictive means can achieve the overriding interest. (Id. at p. 5, ll. 6-14.)
“A strong presumption exists in favor of public access to court records in ordinary civil trials. That is because the public has an interest, in all civil cases, in observing and assessing the performance of its public judicial system, and that interest strongly supports a general right of access in ordinary civil cases.” (In re Marriage of Nicholas (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1566, 1575.)
“A party requesting that a record be filed under seal must file a motion or an application for an order sealing the record. The motion or application must be accompanied by a memorandum and a declaration containing facts sufficient to justify the sealing.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)(1).)
California Rules of Court, rule 2.551 subdivision (b)(2) requires a party requesting that a record be filed under seal must, among other things, serve on “any party that already has access to the records to be placed under seal . . . a complete, unredacted version of all papers as well as a redacted version.” Further: “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). Pending the determination of the motion or application, the lodged record will be conditionally under seal.” (Id. at subd. (b)(4).
“Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(c).)
California Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d) provides:
“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;
“(2) The overriding interest supports sealing the record;
“(3) A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed;
“(4) The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and
“(5) No less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.”
“[A] reasoned decision about sealing or unsealing records cannot be made without identifying and weighing the competing interests and concerns. Such a process is impossible without (1) identifying the specific information claimed to be entitled to such treatment; (2) identifying the nature of the harm threatened by disclosure; and (3) identifying and accounting for countervailing considerations. The burden of presenting information sufficient to accomplish the first two steps is logically placed upon the party seeking the sealing of the documents, who is presumptively in the best position to know what disclosures will harm him and how. This means at a minimum that the party seeking to seal documents, or maintain them under seal, must come forward with a specific enumeration of the facts sought to be withheld and specific reasons for withholding them.” (H.B. Fuller Co. v. Doe (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 879, 894.)
The motion is entirely conclusory. While Daniel cites some relevant cases that pertain to sealing confidential settlement agreements, he does not provide any application to the present action. As to the first three necessary conditions (overriding interest, the overriding interest supporting the sealing of the records, and the substantial probability that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the records are not sealed), Daniel’s argument is essentially that there is a confidentiality clause in the settlement agreement and that the courts routinely favored maintaining the confidentiality of confidential settlement agreements.
While the contractual obligation to not disclose the contents of the settlement agreement may, in certain cases, constitute an overriding interest within the meaning of the statute, the argument fails to give any fact-specific analysis why any overriding interest supports the sealing of the records, or how there is a substantial probability that any overriding interest will be prejudiced if the records are not sealed. Daniel does not even state which portions of the settlement agreement he objects to being disclosed. Many of the terms of the agreement, including the amount he agreed to pay, is already a part of the public record.
As noted above, plaintiff opposes the motion. Even if plaintiff did not oppose the motion and specifically agreed to the documents being filed under seal, the motion would be denied. Having an agreement is simply not enough.
“The court must not permit a record to be filed under seal based solely on the agreement or stipulation of the parties.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(a).)
“Universal [City Studios, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1273] concluded, however, that “ ‘more than a mere agreement of the parties to seal documents filed in a public courtroom’ ” is needed. (Universal, supra, 110 Cal.App.4th at p. 128.) There must be “ ‘a specific showing of serious injury. [Citations.]’ ” [Citation.] “ ‘[S]pecificity is essential. [Citation.] Broad allegations of harm, bereft of specific examples or articulated reasoning, are insufficient.” ’ [Citation.] We have been unable to find any appellate court decision which construes Publicker [Industries, Inc. v. Cohen (3d Cir.1984 733 F.2d 1059] to permit sealing of court documents merely upon the agreement of the parties without a specific showing of serious injury.’ ” [Citation.] Rules of Court, rule 8.46(d)(1) expressly states that a record “ ‘must not be filed under seal solely by stipulation or agreement of the parties.’ ” Thus, the mere agreement of the parties alone is insufficient to constitute an overriding interest to justify sealing the documents.” (McNair v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 25, 35–36.)
As Daniel has not met his burden, the motion to seal will be denied.
“If the court denies the motion or application to seal, the moving party may notify the court that the lodged record is to be filed unsealed. This notification must be received within 10 days of the order denying the motion or application to seal, unless otherwise ordered by the court. On receipt of this notification, the clerk must unseal and file the record. If the moving party does not notify the court within 10 days of the order, the clerk must (1) return the lodged record to the moving party if it is in paper form or (2) permanently delete the lodged record if it is in electronic form.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)(6).
Demurrer
As the motion to seal will be denied, and the request includes the points and authorities for the demurrer, the hearing on the demurrer will be continued to determine whether the points and authorities will be filed unsealed and considered in ruling on the demurrer.