Filed 7/21/26 Sedaghat v. Estrada CA2/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions
not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has
not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
SOHEIL SEDAGHAT, B346208
Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. 24STCV32605)
v.
IRVING R. ESTRADA et al.,
Defendants and
Respondents.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Maurice A. Leiter, Judge. Affirmed.
Soheil Sedaghat, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Hydee Feldstein Soto, City Attorney, Denise C. Mills, Chief
Deputy City Attorney, Kathleen A. Kenealy, Chief Assistant City
Attorney, Shaun Dabby Jacobs, Assistant City Attorney, and
Merete Rietveld, Deputy City Attorney, for Defendants and
Respondents.
1
Soheil Sedaghat (appellant) appeals from the trial court’s
order granting respondents City of Los Angeles and Deputy City
Attorney Irving Estrada’s (collectively, the city) motion brought
pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (section
425.16 or the anti-SLAPP statute).
Appellant has failed to provide a statement of facts or
procedural history of the case, as required by California Rules of
Court, rule 8.204(a)(2). Appellant accuses the city of extortion,
illegal abusive conduct, and abuse of process, without explaining
the conduct in question or how it constitutes such illegal activity.
Because appellant has failed to provide cogent argument, his
claims on appeal are forfeited. (Nelson v. Avondale Homeowners
Assn. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 857, 862 [“‘When an appellant fails
to raise a point, or asserts it but fails to support it with reasoned
argument and citations to authority, we treat the point as
waived.’”].)
Appellant is not exempt from these rules because he is
representing himself on appeal. (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122
Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246–1247.) Because appellant has failed to
follow the rules of appellate procedure, his challenges on appeal
are forfeited. (Id. at p. 1247.) We therefore affirm the trial
court’s order.
Because the city has provided a thorough statement of
facts, procedural history, and citations to relevant facts in the
record, we provide a brief explanation of the trial court’s order
below.1
1 Appellant has failed to provide a reply brief in this appeal,
so has failed to respond to any of the city’s arguments.
2
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
I. Previous lawsuit
On June 10, 2022, appellant filed a lawsuit against the city,
the Los Angeles Police Department, and various police officers
alleging false arrest and related claims in Los Angeles Superior
Court case No. 22STCV19075. During that litigation, appellant
failed to appear for his noticed deposition, and the city,
represented by Estrada, moved to compel appellant’s attendance
and sought monetary sanctions. The motion was granted and the
city awarded $1,025 in sanctions and costs. Appellant was
ordered to appear for his deposition.
Appellant was uncooperative in the discovery process, and
the city moved for terminating sanctions. The trial court denied
the motion but awarded the city $500 in monetary sanctions,
even though appellant had not yet paid the previously ordered
sanctions. The city’s second motion for terminating sanctions
was granted.
II. Current lawsuit
On December 11, 2024, appellant filed the complaint in this
matter against the city, alleging causes of action for civil
extortion, intentional infliction of mental and emotional distress,
violation of Rules of Professional Conduct to obtain an advantage
in a legal proceeding, abuse of process, and violation of civil
rights under title 42 United States Code sections 1983 and 1985.
Appellant alleged in case No. 22STCV19075 the city “unjustly
demanded payment of $2,450.00 … to continue with certain
proceedings or to remove pleadings asking for terminating
sanctions against [appellant].” Appellant sought compensatory
damages, punitive damages, and “[i]njunctive relief for an order
to establish an account in trust, in the amount of TWENTY
3
MILLION DOLLARS, to be used by indigent litigants that are
forced for variety of reasons to represent themselves, for purpose
of payment of attorney fees.”
The city moved to strike the complaint under the anti-
SLAPP statute. The city argued appellant’s claims were based
entirely on actions the city took defending the city and its police
officers in Los Angeles Superior Court case No. 22STCV19075.
The city submitted evidence that the trial court in that matter
ordered appellant to pay over $2,000 in sanctions, which were
never paid. As appellant’s claims in the present matter are based
entirely on the city’s communication in the underlying litigation,
the claims arose out of the city’s constitutionally protected right
to petition and were subject to being stricken under the anti-
SLAPP statute. The city further argued appellant had no
probability of prevailing on his claims for extortion, intentional
infliction of emotional distress, violation of the Rules of
Professional Conduct, and abuse of process, as all were barred by
the litigation privilege. The city also argued, among other things,
appellant failed to comply with the Government Claims Act.
(Gov. Code, § 900 et seq.)
Appellant opposed the motion and argued the city’s speech
was not protected because it constituted coercion and extortion.
Appellant did not appear for the hearing on the city’s anti-
SLAPP motion. The trial court found the city met its burden of
establishing appellant’s causes of action arose from protected
activity. Appellant made no arguments establishing the merits of
the underlying claims; thus he failed to establish a probability of
success on the merits. The trial court granted the anti-SLAPP
motion.
4
Appellant timely appealed.2
DISCUSSION
“‘We presume [the trial court’s] ruling is correct, and
[appellant has] the burden of showing error on appeal.’” (Pacific
Bell Telephone Co. v. County of Placer (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th
634, 640.) “Appellant[] must make sufficient arguments to
establish trial court error ….” (Ibid.) We will not develop
appellant’s arguments for him. (Ibid.)
Appellant has failed to meet his burden of showing error on
appeal. Appellant has failed to comply with the California Rules
of Court and has failed to support his arguments on appeal with
reasoned argument. (Nelson v. Avondale Homeowners Assn.,
supra, 172 Cal.App.4th at p. 862.)
As set forth above, appellant’s status as a litigant in
propria persona does not excuse his failure to comply with these
requirements regarding the contents of his brief. (Nwosu v. Uba,
supra, 122 Cal.App.4th at p. 1246.)
Because appellant’s opening brief fails to provide factual
background or cogent argument supported by legal analysis on
the relevant issues, appellant has forfeited any purported
arguments on appeal, and we decline to address them.
2 The court later entered judgment against appellant in this
matter. However, “[a]n order granting an anti-SLAPP motion as
to the entire complaint is itself a judgment,” therefore is
appealable. (WasteXperts, Inc. v. Arakelian Enterprises, Inc.
(2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 652, 658, fn. 4.)
5
DISPOSITION
The trial court’s order striking the complaint pursuant to
section 425.16 is affirmed. The parties are to bear their own
costs of appeal.
CHAVEZ, Acting P. J.
We concur:
RICHARDSON, J.
GOORVITCH, J.
6