Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 21STCV46937, Date: 2023-04-06 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: April 6, 2023

Case Name: Heidari Law Group, P.C. v. Najafi

Case No.: 21STCV23966

Matter: Motion for Reconsideration

Moving Party: Plaintiffs Heidari Law Group, P.C. and Saman Ryan Heidari

Responding Party: Defendants Nina Najafi, Eric Bryan Seuthe, Law Offices Of Eric Bryan 

Seuthe & Associates

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motion for Reconsideration is denied.

Moving parties to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly 

encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

On July 27, 2022, Plaintiffs Heidari Law Group, P.C. (“HLG”) and Saman Ryan Heidari filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against Defendants Nina Najafi, Eric Bryan Seuthe, Law Offices Of Eric Bryan Seuthe & Associates, Mesriani & Associates, Sanaz Imani, and Rodney Mesriani for (1) breach of contract, (2) declaratory relief, (3) conspiracy to induce breach of contract, (4) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (5) fraud, (6) conspiracy to commit fraud, (7) conversion, (8) conspiracy to commit conversion, (9) intentional interference with contract, (10) conspiracy to commit interference with contract, (11) constructive trust, (12) defamation per se, (13) malicious prosecution, (14) abuse of process, and (15) violation of the UCL.  

Among other things, Plaintiffs allege that they were counsel for Najafi in a lawsuit relating to an automobile collision (“Underlying Action”) and that Najafi—after obtaining new counsel—failed to pay a portion of her settlement proceeds to Plaintiffs, as required by their retainer agreement.

On October 19, 2022, Najafi, Seuthe, and Law Offices of Eric Bryan Seuthe & Associates filed an anti-SLAPP motion as to the FAC’s claims for malicious prosecution and abuse of process.  That same day, Defendants Rodney Mesriani and Mesriani & Associates filed a separate anti-SLAPP motion as to the same causes of action.  These anti-SLAPP motions are currently scheduled for February 14, 2023.

On January 13, 2023, Heidari and HLG dismissed the FAC’s thirteenth and fourteenth causes of action.

On May 16, 2022, Nina Najafi filed the Second Amended Cross-Complaint (“SACC”) against HLG and Heidari for (1) legal malpractice, (2) breach of fiduciary duty, and (3) fraud.  Najafi alleges that Cross-Defendants bungled her settlement.

On August 9, 2022, Heidari and HLG filed a Cross-Complaint against Mesriani & Associates and Rodney Mesriani for (1) indemnity, (2) partial indemnity, (3) equitable indemnity, and (4) contribution.  

On February 6, 2023, the Court, in a detailed ruling, sustained the demurrer of Defendants Mesriani & Associates, Sanaz Imani, and Rodney Mesriani as to the third, fifth, and sixth causes of action in the FAC, without leave to amend.

On February 14, 2023, the Court heard Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motions.  That same day, the Court also ruled on the demurrer of Nina Najafi, Eric Bryan Seuthe, Law Offices Of Eric Bryan Seuthe & Associates.  Specifically, the Court ruled: “The ruling of February 6, 2023 on the Mesriani defendants' Demurrer is also applied to the Najafi defendants' Demurrer.”

Heidari and HLG now seek reconsideration of the Court’s February 14, 2023, ruling on the Seuthe demurrer.  They argue that they didn’t have notice of the demurrer hearing and that they did not have an opportunity to argue that the ruling on the Seuthe demurrer should be different from the Mesriani demurrer.  

Code Civ. Proc. § 1008(a) provides, “When an application for an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or in part, or granted, or granted conditionally, or on terms, any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, make application to the same judge or court that made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order. The party making the application shall state by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown.”

Here, the Court is not aware of any new facts or law warranting reconsideration.  HLG and Heidari already raised these issues on February 14, 2023.  Therefore, the Motion for Reconsideration is denied.

Moving parties to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.