Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles 

Department 78 

 

JEFFREY ITO,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

LESLIE LALLAVE, et al.,

Defendants. Case No.: 23STCV02423

PLAINTIFF JEFFREY ITO’S MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT

 

Defendant Jeffrey Ito’s motion to vacate judgment is DENIED.

The hearing on special motion to strike reserved for 3/13/2024 is taken off calendar.

Moving party to give notice.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND  

This is an action about a restraining order and alleged defamatory statements. The Complaint alleges as follows. Plaintiff Jeffrey Ito (“Plaintiff”) was served with a restraining order on December 16, 2019 and again on December 5, 2022. (Compl., ¶¶ 6, 7.) He alleges that the defendants falsified many statements in the restraining order, which states that he has been arrested several times and has been involved in various criminal matters. (Compl., ¶¶ 8, 13.) He also alleges that the defendants have been reaching out to his personal, social, college alumni network, and the women he has dated to misrepresent who he is. (Compl., ¶ 14, 16, 17.) He further alleges that when he meets or communicates with somebody for the first time, the defendants reach out to them the same day to spread malicious falsehoods or tell that person to ignore or block me. (Compl., ¶ 14.) He alleges that his stepfather told him that people were reaching out to him and telling him that Plaintiff had mental health problems and was involved with crimes. (Compl., ¶ 16.) He also alleges that one of his best friends from middle school appears to have preconceived notions and a distorted predisposition of his character regarding marriage and his ex-girlfriend. (Compl., ¶ 17.) 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

Plaintiff filed the Complaint on February 3, 2023 alleging the defamation cause of action.  

On July 27, 2023, the Court granted Defendants’ Anti-SLAPP motion to strike.

On August 14, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to vacate judgment.

DISCUSSION 

Plaintiff Jeffrey Ito moves to set aside judgment under Code Civ. Proc., section 663 on the grounds that Defendants’ special motion to strike should not have been granted because making a false report to law enforcement is not protected speech. Plaintiff also cites Code Civ. Proc., section 657, but this section pertains to motions for new trial and is not applicable here.

A judgment, when based upon a decision by the court, or the special verdict of a jury, may, upon motion of the party aggrieved, be set aside and vacated by the same court, and another and different judgment entered, for either (1) incorrect or erroneous legal basis for the decision, not consistent with or not supported by the facts, or (2) a judgment or decree is not consistent with or not supported by the special verdict. (Code Civ. Proc., section 663.) “A motion to vacate under section 663 is a remedy to be used when a trial court draws incorrect conclusions of law or renders an erroneous judgment on the basis of uncontroverted evidence.” (Simac Design, Inc. v. Alciati¿(1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 146, 153.) 

Here, Plaintiff moves to set aside judgment in Defendants’ favor after the Court granted Defendants’ Anti-SLAPP motion to strike on July 27, 2023.

The Court considered whether Plaintiff’s claims were based on protected activity and found that Plaintiff’s claim for defamation arose from the filing of a restraining order. Acts of initiating and maintaining requests for domestic violence restraining orders are protected activities. (S.A. v. Maiden (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 27, 35.) Here, because Plaintiff’s claim arose from Defendants’ filing of a domestic violence restraining order, the claim arises from protective activity. Plaintiff then offered no admissible evidence showing he was likely to succeed on the merits and thus failed to meet his burden of proving a likelihood of success on the merits of his claim. 

Plaintiff fails to explain why the Court’s July 27, 2023 order was based on an incorrect or erroneous legal basis not supported by the facts. 

DATED: November 1, 2023

                                                                 _______________________________ 

Hon. Jill Feeney 

Judge of the Superior Court