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

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 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.