Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 18STCV08065, Date: 2023-02-28 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 18STCV08065 Hearing Date: February 28, 2023 Dept: 17
Superior
Court of California
County
of Los Angeles
DEPARTMENT 17
TENTATIVE
RULING
|
MOHAMMAD
SIRAJULLAH vs. MERCURY CASUALTY COMPANY |
Case No.:
18STCV08065 Hearing
Date: February 28, 2023 |
Plaintiff’s
motion is DENIED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
On
12/12/2018, Plaintiff Mohammad Sirajullah MD (Plaintiff) filed suit against Saif
Kutubi aka Saifuddin Kutubi, Quazi Moshhooorul, Shafi Ahmed aka Shafi Uddin
Ahmed, and Shaiekh Rafiqul Islam, alleging: (1) defamation; and (2) intentional
infliction of emotional distress.
On
6/27/2022, Plaintiff filed an acknowledgement of satisfaction of judgment.
Now,
Plaintiff moves to vacate satisfaction of judgment.
Discussion
Plaintiff
moves to vacate his 6/27/2022 acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment on the
grounds that it was a clerical error and only a partial acknowledgement
of satisfaction of judgment should have been filed as to Defendant Saif Kutubi.
Plaintiff
filed this motion on 2/1/2023—nearly 8 months after the acknowledgement was
filed. As such, Plaintiff’s motion does not qualify for relief under CCP
section 473, subdivision (b) which provides that an application for relief
“shall not be granted…in no case exceeding six months….” Plaintiff, despite
citing section 473(b), does not address the timeliness issue here. As such,
Plaintiff has not identified any exception to the six-month deadline set forth
by section 473(b), nor has he offered any other basis for affording the relief sought.[1]
While
a trial court may offer equitable relief past the six-month mark, Plaintiff has
not set forth any argument to show it meets the stringent conditions required
for such relief. (See Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th
975.)
Based
on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion is denied, without prejudice.
It is so ordered.
Dated: February
, 2023
Hon. Jon R.
Takasugi
Judge of the
Superior Court
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must
send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org
by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court
website at www.lacourt.org. If a party submits
on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must
identify the party submitting on the tentative.
If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this
tentative as the final order. If the department
does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the
tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed
off calendar.
Due to Covid-19, the court is
strongly discouraging in-person appearances. Parties, counsel, and court reporters present
are subject to temperature checks and health inquiries, and will be denied
entry if admission could create a public health risk. The court encourages the parties wishing to
argue to appear via L.A. Court Connect.
For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213)
633-0517. Your understanding during
these difficult times is appreciated.
[1] While
Plaintiff’s motion also cites CCP section 473(d), this section refers to the Court’s
own clerical mistakes, not the moving party’s. As such, it does not afford
a basis for relief here.