In re The Masoumeh Ziaee Harsini Trust CA2/4

Filed 10/7/25 In re The Masoumeh Ziaee Harsini Trust CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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(a). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR

In re THE MASOUMEH ZIAEE B339520 HARSINI TRUST DATED APRIL 27, 2004 Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. MIKE HARSINI, 19STPB10938

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

KAMRAN HARSINI, Individually and as Successor Trustee, etc.,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Deborah L. Christian, Judge. Affirmed. Mike Harsini, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. No appearance for Defendant and Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

Appellant Mike Harsini (Harsini) appeals an August 2024 judgment2 entered against him in a probate case relating to The Masoumeh Ziaee Harsini Trust Dated April 27, 2004. In the underlying case, Harsini filed a petition, which was opposed by respondent Kamran Harsini (Kamran). The petition is not part of the appellate record, and the record contains no other documents shedding light on the relief sought. By way of the judgment, the trial court granted Kamran’s oral motion for nonsuit and denied Harsini all requested relief with prejudice. Harsini appears to argue that the judgment must be reversed because the trial court should have granted his March 2024 motion to disqualify Kamran’s counsel, Victoria Marsh, based on her remarks at a hearing held in October 2023. There, Harsini asserts, Marsh falsely reported receiving an anonymous phone call telling her that Harsini “planned to murder her.”3 He also contends reversal is required based on the trial judge’s bias against him and other erroneous rulings on the trial court’s part, including its decision to deem him a vexatious litigant.

1 See Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin, § 8.1 and People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851. 2 We exercise our discretion to deem Harsini’s premature notice of appeal filed on June 25, 2024, as having been taken from the judgment entered on August 21, 2024. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.104(d)(2).) 3 Harsini’s assertion is unsupported by the record. According to the reporter’s transcript for that proceeding, Marsh reported that she received an anonymous call telling her to “watch [her] back and be careful” because Harsini “ha[s] threatened a judge previously . . . .”