1. Whether Assembly Bill No.2819 's mandatory automatic and permanent case
sealing requirements in limited unlawful detainer cases extends to sealing
Appellate cases for Petitions for Writ of Mandate that are filed in such
unlawful detainer cases, when the Legislature declared it enacted AB-2819 to
prevent public disclosure in order to protect innocent tenants.

2. Whether the Super. Ct., after a plaintiff submitted false documentary evidence
in the form of a fraudulent proof of service for substitute service and false
declaration of diligence, and the defendant provided home surveillance
evidence and personal knowledge refuting the false evidence, erred and abused
its discretion in denying a Motion to Quash Summons after imposing the
incorrect evidentiary standard in requiring the Defendant to overcome a
presumption when the burden was shifted back on to the Plaintiff to provide
additional evidence beyond the process server 's perjured testimony?

3. Whether the Super. Ct. abused its discretion in denying a Motion to Quash
when a Defendant demonstrates that service by posting was not effectuated
properly because it was posted without a court order to post.

Whether Assembly Bill No.2819's mandatory automatic and permanent case sealing requirements in limited unlawful detainer cases extends to sealing Appellate cases for Petitions for Writ of Mandate that are filed in such unlawful detainer cases