Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 22STCV22174, Date: 2023-08-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV22174    Hearing Date: December 20, 2023    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

On July 11, 2022, Plaintiff Tenant Mike Harsini (“Plaintiff”) in pro per, filed this action against Defendants South Bay Property Management Inc. and “Agents: Wanda Rafael” (jointly, “Defendants”). The Complaint alleged one cause of action for “OSC: Failure to Perform.”

On January 31, 2023, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Amended Complain [sic] on OSC” (herein, the “FAC”).

Defendants demurred to the FAC. On November 17, 2023, the Court issued an order sustaining Defendant’s demurrer. The Court’s November 17, 2023 order provides, inter alia, that

“[t]he Demurrer - without Motion to Strike filed by South Bay Property Management Inc, Wanda Rafael on 08/16/2023 is Sustained without Leave to Amend. The Court orders Defendants to file and serve a proposed judgment of dismissal within 10 days of the date of this order.”

            Plaintiff now moves for “an order under Code of Civil Procedure…Section…633…to vacate dismissal judgment…” Defendants oppose.

Discussion

As set forth above Plaintiff moves for “an order under Code of Civil Procedure…Section…633…to vacate dismissal judgment…” (See Mot. at p. 2:3-4.) It appears that Plaintiff seeks to vacate the Order entered on November 17, 2023 in this matter.

Code of Civil Procedure section 663 provides that “[a] judgment or decree, 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 of the following causes, materially affecting the substantial rights of the party and entitling the party to a different judgment: 1. Incorrect or erroneous legal basis for the decision, not consistent with or not supported by the facts; and in such case when the judgment is set aside, the statement of decision shall be amended and corrected. 2. A judgment or decree not consistent with or not supported by the special verdict.”

Plaintiff states that “[t]his Motion is made on the following grounds that: The defendant’s attorney Spivey has been given a variety of chances by this court to respond to the Plaintiff’s complaint on the Breach of the Commercial Leasing Contract agreement based on the Landlord’s failure to perform his duty within 30 days per the lease agreement contract he signed to resolve the Plaintiff’s complaint. Counsel Spivey’s demurrer should not be sustained simply because the Landlord or the South Bay Property Management have both been negligent and irresponsible in stopping the health hazard poisonous sulfate carbon-monoxide fumes caused by the next door tenant’s barbequing in his office 24/7 during the last seven years.” (Mot. at p. 2:9-16.)

To the extent Plaintiff seeks to vacate the Court’s November 17, 2023 Order, the Court does not find that Plaintiff has demonstrated that there is an “[i]ncorrect or erroneous legal basis for the decision, not consistent with or not supported by the facts…” (Code Civ. Proc., § 663(1).) In addition, Code of Civil Procedure section 663(2) is not applicable here, as it concerns “[a] judgment or decree not consistent with or not supported by the special verdict.”

Lastly, Plaintiff seeks “$100K in default judgment against the Defendants’ attorney T. Spivey for her five months’ long failure to respond to the Court order of Meet & Confer promptly.” (Mot. at p. 2:22-23.) Plaintiff also requests that “the court establish a Court Trial Settings to have Torrance PD Lieutenant Farley appear in court and testify as a witness to this Case of Breach of Commercial Leasing agreement by the landlord.” (Mot. at p. 2:23-25.) The Court does not see how these requests are relevant to the instant motion “to set aside/vacate dismissal judgement [sic] entered on November 17, 2023.” (See Mot, p. 1.) In addition, such requests are not supported by any legal authority. Thus, the foregoing requests are denied.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s instant motion “to set aside/vacate dismissal judgement [sic] entered on November 17, 2023” is denied.

Defendants are ordered to give notice of this order. 

DATED:  December 20, 2023                        ________________________________

Hon. Rolf M. Treu

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court