Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

In May 2016, Hollywood director and graphic novelist, Blake Leibel, brutally murdered his then-girlfriend, Iana Kasian.  Plaintiff Adam J. Tenser is Leibel’s entertainment lawyer and friend.  Leibel was tried and convicted of murder, torture and aggravated mayhem.   

Tenser attended the trial and was admonished by the trial judge to “not have contact with attorneys, witnesses or jurors in the case.”  Tenser then purportedly followed a juror to his car and after the juror expressed discomfort and was excused, the Court cited Tenser for contempt and ordered him to “leave the building and stay away from the trial and the courthouse.”   

Following the Leibel trial, Tenser filed a series of lawsuits and related appeals in pro per in federal and state courts, almost all of which resulted in early dismissals either because they violate the anti-SLAPP statute or because they were without merit as a matter of law.  Defendants in one of the lawsuits (Phillip Hop V and the Los Angeles County Defendants) filed motion to declare Tenser a vexatious litigant.   

The Court granted the motion on three grounds: (1) Tenser has filed in pro per eight litigations in the last five years that have been finally determined adversely to him; (2) Tenser repeatedly sues the same parties for the same claims, all of them essentially arising from the Leibel Trial; and (3) Tenser has repeatedly filed papers without merit and engaged in tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.   

The Court ordered Tenser to post $500,000 in security within 30 days, as a condition to pursuing all pending actions, claims, cross-claims and actions of any kind commenced, maintained and/or prosecuted by Tenser (not including affirmative claims against Tenser or cases against Tenser initiated by other parties), that are before this Court.  The Court ordered all pending actions stayed until posting of the security, and should Tenser not post the security, his actions would be dismissed.  The Court also entered a pre-filing order prohibiting Tenser from filing any new in pro per litigation in the courts of this state without first obtaining leave of court and to post a security prior to filing any new in pro per litigation.  The Court will collectively refer to these orders as the Vexatious Litigant Order.    

Tenser failed to post security, and accordingly, at the hearing on September 19, 2024, the Court entered an order of dismissal without prejudice as to the entire action. 

This hearing is on Tenser’s motion to vacate order granting Defendants’ motion to declare Tenser a vexatious litigant.  Defendants argue that (1) the motion is untimely; (2) Tenser should not be allowed to file the motion given he failed to post security; (3) Tenser’s motion violates the stay order, and (4) there is no valid basis to vacate the order.   

DISCUSSION 

The County Defendants seek judicial notice of (1) August 8, 2024 Order Re: Defendant Philip Hosp V and the Los Angeles County Defendants’ Joint Motion to Declare Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant; (2) August 13, 2024 Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to Post Bond After Having Been Deemed a Vexatious Litigant; (3) September 19, 2024 minute order dismissing PHILLIP HOSP (“Hosp”) and County Defendants without prejudice; (4) August 19, 2024 Notice of Lodging, attaching a draft Prefiling Order – Vexatious Litigant; (5) September 10, 2024 Prefiling Order – Vexatious Litigant; and (6) May 28, 2024 Minute Order.  The Court denies the request as unnecessary.  There is no need to ask the Court to take judicial notice of pleadings in this action.  A party may simply call the Court’s attention to such filings and orders. 

Tenser requests judicial notice of thirty six court documents filed in various cases.  Tenser does not explain the relevance of any of these court records, and accordingly, the Court denies Tenser’s request to take judicial notice.  

DISCUSSION 

Tenser has not posted the required security, and accordingly, this action is dismissed, and Tenser cannot file any motions.   

Even if there was no dismissal and no order preventing Plaintiff from filing motions, Plaintiff’s motion has no merit.   To the extent it purports to be a “motion to vacate”, it fails.  Section 663 of the Code of Civil Procedure only allows a party to bring a motion to vacate a final judgment.  The Vexatious Litigant Order is not a final judgment.  (Id. (referring to “judgment or decree”, not orders).)  

Even assuming the Vexatious Litigant Order were a judgment, the motion to vacate is untimely.  Section 663 requires that the motion be made either (1) after the decision is rendered and before the entry of judgment, or (2) within 15 days of the mailing of the notice of entry of judgment by the clerk.  Here, the Court dismissed the FAC on September 19, 2024, after Tenser failed to post bond and gave notice the same day.  Thus, 204 days have elapsed between the notice of order of dismissal and Tenser’s filing of this motion, which makes it untimely. 

To the extent the motion to vacate is made under Section 473(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, it also fails as the Vexatious Litigant Order is facially valid.  Once six months have passed since the entry of a judgment or order, a trial court may grant a motion to set aside a judgment or order as void only if the judgment or order is void on its face.  (Cruz v. Fagor America, Inc. (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 488, 496.)  A judgment or order is void on its face when the invalidity is apparent upon an inspection of the judgment-roll or the court record, without consideration of extrinsic evidence. (Dill v. Berquist Construction Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1441.)   

Here, Tenser identifies nothing in the Order itself that would render it facially invalid.  Instead, Tenser asks the Court to take judicial notice of thirty-six exhibits beyond the order itself.  All of the “evidence” submitted by Tenser cannot be considered on the question of whether the order is void on its face.  

Tenser has really brought a motion for reconsideration, disguised as a motion to vacate.  A motion for reconsideration must be made within 10 days upon service of notice of entry of the order.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008.)  Tenser was served with notice of the Vexatious Litigant Order on August 8, 2024.  His deadline to file the motion for reconsideration was August 18, 2024.  He filed his present motion on April 11, 2025.  In addition, to move for reconsideration, Tenser was required to present new or different facts, circumstances or law.  He has failed to do so.     

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Tenser’s motion to vacate order declaring him a vexatious litigant.   

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

DATED: May 23, 2025 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court