Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles 

Department 78 

¿ 

 

I. BACKGROUND 

On May 19, 2023, plaintiff Saeed Masjedi (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Elizabeth Valdez (“Defendant”) and Does 1 to 300 for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (“IIED”) and violations of Civ. Code, section 1942.5(d). Plaintiff alleges that he was Defendant’s tenant. In June 2022, when Plaintiff notified Defendant of a leak in his sink that required repair, Defendant began engaging in retaliatory conduct which caused him emotional distress. 

On December 8, 2023, the court sustained with leave to amend Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s cause of action for retaliatory eviction and overruled the cause of action for IIED. (Min. Order, Dec. 8, 20223.) Plaintiff was given thirty days leave to file a first amended complaint. (Ibid.)  

On January 16, 2024, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). 

On February 2, 2024, Defendant (or “Cross-Complainant”) filed a cross-complaint against Plaintiff (or “Cross-Defendant”) for (1) elder abuse, (2) IIED, and (3) NIED. 

On June 18, 2024, the court denied Cross-Defendant’s special motion to strike the cross-complaint. The found that the cross-complaint filed by Cross-Complainant does not arise from protected activity, and that Cross-Defendant fails to satisfy the first prong of the anti-SLAPP analysis. (Min. Order, June 18, 2024.) 

On July 3, 2024, self-represented Cross-Defendant filed the instant motion seeking to set aside the June 18, 2024 Order and reversing the denial of the motion. 

On July 26, 2024, Cross-Complainant filed an opposition to the motion. 

On August 15, 2024, Cross-Defendant filed a reply. 

 

II. DISCUSSION 

Cross-Defendant moves to vacate the June 18, 2024 Order pursuant to CCP § 663. CCP § 663 applies to a judgment, decree, or special verdict of a jury. As Cross-Complainant points out in the opposition, CCP § 663 is inapplicable here. Further, Cross-Complainant’s opposition is not untimely, as argued by Cross-Defendant. Cross-Defendant’s reference to the deadlines imposed by CCP §659a, which applies to a motion for new trial, are not relevant here. 

It appears that Cross-Defendant is attempting to reargue issues raised to Judge Feeney at the time of the June 18, 2024 hearing. This Court has no personal knowledge of what was argued at the hearing, but it does not change the fact that Cross-Defendant has not met his burden demonstrating any basis to vacate or modify the June 18, 2024 Order, whether it be pursuant to CCP § 473 or a motion for reconsideration under CCP § 1008(a). 

The Court declines Cross-Complainant’s request to issue an OSC Re: Sanctions. 

 

III. CONCLUSION 

Cross-Defendant’s Motion to Vacate/Set Aside the June 18, 2024 Order is DENIED. 

 

Moving Party is ordered to give notice. 

 

DATED: August 27, 2024 

__________________________ 

Hon. Michelle C. Kim 

Judge of the Superior Court 

 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement. 

• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at SMCDEPT78@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number. The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting. 

• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument. You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue. 

• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.