Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 24STCV32605, Date: 2025-04-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV32605    Hearing Date: April 15, 2025    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: April 15, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice Leiter

Anti-SLAPP;

Demurrer to Complaint

Moving Party: Defendants City of Los Angeles, Irving Estrada and Cory Brente

Responding Party: Plaintiff Soheil Sedaghat

T/R:     DEFENDANTS’ ANTI-SLAPP IS GRANTED.

THE DEMURRER IS MOOT.

DEFENDANTS TO NOTICE

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at SMCdept54@lacourt.org with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

The Court considers the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND

On December 11, 2024, Plaintiff Soheil Sedaghat filed a complaint against Defendants City of Los Angeles, Irving Estrada, and Cory Brente, asserting causes of action for (1) civil extortion; (2) IIED; (3) violation of Rules of Professional Conduct; (4) abuse of process; and (5) violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges that “during pendency of case 22STCV19075, defendant Irving Estrada unjustly demanded payment of $2,450.00 from this plaintiff, to continue with certain proceedings or to remove pleadings asking for terminating sanctions against plaintiff.”

ANALYSIS

In ruling on a special motion to strike pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, or anti-SLAPP motion, the court applies a two-prong test. First, the court determines whether the moving defendant has met his or her burden to establish that the “challenged cause of action is one arising from protected activity.” (Equilon Enterprises, L.L.C. v. Consumer Cause, Inc. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 53, 66.) The moving defendant meets this burden by demonstrating that “the act or acts of which the plaintiff complains were taken ‘in furtherance of the [defendant]'s right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue,’ as defined in the statute.” (Id.)

The court then moves to the second prong, in which the burden shifts to Plaintiff to demonstrate a probability of prevailing on the merits of the complaint. (Id.) “To establish such a probability, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the complaint is both legally sufficient and supported by a sufficient prima facie showing of facts to sustain a favorable judgment if the evidence submitted by the plaintiff is credited.” (Matson v. Dvorak (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 539, 548.) “Only a cause of action that satisfies both prongs of the anti-SLAPP statute—i.e., that arises from protected speech or petitioning and lacks even minimal merit—is a SLAPP, subject to being stricken under the statute.” (Navellier v. Sletten (2002) 29 Cal.4th 82, 89.)

A. Protected Activity

Defendants move to strike the entire complaint on the ground that it arises from Defendants’ protected petitioning activity. As stated, Plaintiff’s complaint contains one factual allegation that “during pendency of case 22STCV19075, defendant Irving Estrada unjustly demanded payment of $2,450.00 from this plaintiff, to continue with certain proceedings or to remove pleadings asking for terminating sanctions against plaintiff.” This allegation seeks redress for Defendants’ petitioning activity.

In opposition, Plaintiff asserts that the conduct is not protected because it constitutes extortion. But Plaintiff presents no argument or evidence to support this assertion.

Defendants have met their burden to establish that the complaint arises from protected activity. The burden shifts to Plaintiff to establish a probability of success on the merits.

B. Probability of Success on the Merits

Plaintiff makes no argument regarding the merits of the underlying claims. Plaintiff has failed to establish a probability of success on the merits.

Defendants’ anti-SLAPP is GRANTED. Defendants’ demurrer is MOOT.