Preview
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address)
Lesley B. Harris (SBN 124248)
Law Office of Lesley Harris
55 River St., #100
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
TELEPHONE NO.:831-458-0502 x120
E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optional): |eslevharrisesa@amail.com
ATTORNEY FOR (Name): Defendant Jeanne Turner Tabatabai
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ
STREET ADDRESS: 701 Ocean St.
MAILING ADDRESS:
FOR COURT USE ONLY
FAX NO. (Optional)
CITY AND ZIP CODE: Santa Cruz, CA 95060
BRANCH NAME:
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Shahram Tabatabai
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Jeanne Turner Tabatabai
CIV-130
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
OR ORDER CASE NUMBER
(Check one): [0¢] UNLIMITED CASE CCuimitep case 18Cv02004
(Amount demanded (Amount demanded was
exceeded $25,000) $25,000 or less)
TO ALL PARTIES :
4.
A judgment, decree, or order was entered in this action on (date): 9/12/22
2. A copy of the judgment, decree, or order is attached to this notice.
Date: 9/22/22
‘
Lesley B. Harris > Ao a\
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF [_ ] ATTORNEY PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY) Cc) \ (SIGNATURE)
Form Approved for Optional Use
Judicial Council of California
Page 1 of 2
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER
IV-130 [New January 1, 2010]
wunw.courts.ca.govOA BW Bee
CO wm aD
ELECTRONICALLY RECEIVED
9/8/2022 3:19 PM
Electronically Filed
Superior Court of California
Lesley B. Harris (SBN 124248)
55 River Street, Suite 100 County of Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz, California 95060 September 12, 2022
Telephone: 831-458-0502 Nee vo, Clerk
Email: lesleyharrisesq@gmail.com , Salsedo, Declan
9/12/2022 12:05:29 PM
Attorney for Defendant, Cross-complainant
and Cross-defendant
JEANNE TURNER TABATABAL
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ
Case No.: 18CV02004
NEMAT MALEKSALEHI,
ORDER GRANTING JEANNE
Plaintiff, TABATABAI’S MOTION FOR
v. JUDGMENT ON THE
PLEADINGS
SHAHRAM TABATABAL, an individual;
JEANNE TURNER TABATABAI, an
individual, and DOES | through 10,
inclusive,
Defendants.
AND RELATED CLAIMS
SS SS SSS ee
Defendant Jeanne Turner Tabatabai’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings came on
regularly for hearing August 29, 2022 in Department 5 of this Court, Honorable Timothy
Volkmann presiding. Lesley Harris appeared for moving party Defendant Jeanne Turner
Order Granting Jeanne Turner Tabatabai’s
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
18CV02004
PagelTabatabai. Tanzeel Hak of By the Law, PC appeared for opposing party former Defendant, now
Plaintiff, Shahram Tabatabai. Defendant Robert Lindow appeared in pro per.
Having read and considered the Motion, the Memoranda in support and in opposition,
and Request for Judicial Notice filed by Defendant Turner, and having heard argument of
counsel,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The motion is granted. The Court finds that the claims assigned by Maleksalehi to
Tabatabai pursuant to their settlement agreement are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the
family law court; and that Tabatabai is collaterally estopped from pursuing these claims by prior
decisions made by this Court and others, in which these same claims were found to be in the
exclusive jurisdiction of the family law court.
The only alleged remaining debt to Maleksalehi is a community debt; and the business
valuations and the equalization/distribution of community assets and debts of Tabatabai and
Turner are issues that have been reserved by the family law court for final determination, and
have yet to be decided.
The Court does not find any of Mr. Tabatabai’s arguments in opposition to this motion
persuasive:
Tabatabai argues that he may pursue the assigned claims in this court, because he stands
in the shoes of the assignor, Maleksalehi; and that under Civ. Code $368, 1459 he takes the
assigned rights only subject to the defenses that existed prior to the notice of assignment.
Because Turner did not have any defense against Malek related to res judicata or jurisdiction
prior to receiving notice of eh assignment on February 24, 2002, Tabatabai argues that he is not
subject to these defenses of res judicata or jurisdiction. An assignee stands in the shoes of the
Order Granting Jeanne Turner Tabatabai’s
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
1L8CVO2004
Page2Bw hw
assignor with respect to the assignor’s right to recover his or her own property, not for other
purposes unrelated to the assignor’s right to recover property. Amalgamated Transit Union
Local 1756, AFL-CIO v Sup. Ct. of L.A. (2009) 46 Cal. 4th 993, 1001-10002. Malek’s right to
bring a civil claim, as a non-spouse party, is not a property right which can be transferred to
Tabatabai by an assignment.
Tabatabai argues that subject matter jurisdiction over the assigned claims has already
attached in this action, as confirmed by this Court’s ruling in overruling Turner’s demurrer to
Malek’s complaint; and that once subject matter jurisdiction is established it continues. Civ.
Code §451.50.
Subject matter jurisdiction was not raised by the demurrer to Malek’s complaint, nor was
it an issue at that point. However, subject matter jurisdiction is never waived. Costa v Bonta (98
Cal. App. 2d 181, 182. When an assignment triggers exclusive jurisdiction in another court under]
a specific statute (e.g. bankruptcy court of the family law court), the more specific statute
controls over Civ. Code §451.50. See Smith v Sup. Ct. (1977) 68 Cal. App. 3d 457;
Moreover, the family law court took jurisdiction over Tabatabai's claims that Turner
interfered with the sale of Enabledware when he raised these claims in that court in 2016, two
years before Malek filed this action. The first forum in which jurisdiction attaches retains it
exclusively. MH Golden Construction Co. v Sup. Ct. of Imperial Valley (1950) 98 Cal. App. 2d
811, 815-816.
Tabatabai asserts that the ruling on Turner’s demurrer to Tabatabai’s cross-complaint is
not res judicata, and does not prevent Tabatabai from pursuing Malek’s assigned claims,
because the cross-complaint had eight causes of action; Malek’s complaint has only four causes
of action; two of Tabatabai’s causes of action include “conspiracy”, which are not included in
Order Granting Jeanne Turner Tabatabai’s
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
18CV02004
Page 3Malek’s complaint; and therefore only two causes of action (for breach of contract and breach of
fiduciary duty) overlap. The fact that allegations of “conspiracy” (with Lindow) have been
included in Tabatabai’s two interference claims does not change the core allegations against
Turner for interfering with the sale of Enabledware.—claims which this court and others have
found to be in the exclusive jurisdiction of the family law court. Tabatabai ignores the fact that
the San Mateo court’s ruling on the demurrer to his complaint against Turner in that court,
which is based on the same four claims Malek has made against Turner in the Complaint, is res
judicata as to these assigned claims.
Tabatabai asserts that the past litigation is not comparable, and is not res judicata,
because (1) none of these cases involved assigned rights; and (2) in the Envision Media case the
Court was unaware of an agreement between the parties to have the motion to dismiss heard first,
and the demurrer was sustained “without prejudice to allowing Tabatabai to pursue the action
again, if necessary”. Whether the prior actions involved assigned rights has no bearing on
whether these actions are res judicata as to the claims Tabatabai now wishes to pursue. With
respect to the Envision Media action, Tabatabai filed his motion to dismiss the action after
Turner filed her demurrer with a request for fees/sanctions under CCP $128.5. It was within the
Court’s discretion to hear the demurrer first, so that Turner’s request for fess could be addressed,
Additionally, Tabatabai is incorrect on stating that the demurrer was sustained “without
prejudice..”. Judge Connolly’s May 4 2021 Order very clearly states that “the unopposed
demurrer is sustained, without leave to amend, for lack of jurisdiction”.
Finally, Tabatabai appears to argue that this Court should consolidate his assigned claims
with the dissolution action in order to avoid the bar of the statute of limitations on his claims for
interference with contract and prospective economic advantage, and for breach of fiduciary duty;
Order Granting Jeanne Turner Tabatabai’s
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
18CV02004
Page 4oO IND HW B®
however, he simultaneously asserts that consolidation “may not be appropriate, considering
none of the elements are present to allow it”, Tabatabai has presented no basis for consolidation,
nor is it appropriate since these assigned claims are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
family law court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Judgment of dismissal with prejudice be entered in
favor of Defendant Jeanne Turner Tabatabai and against Plaintiff Shahram Tabatabai, pursuant
to C.C.P. §438(h)(3), and that Defendant Jeanne Turner Tabatabai be awarded her case costs
recoverable under C.C.P. §§1032, 1033.5, subject to submission of a memorandum of costs and
any motion to tax.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
——
Date: "92022 1:59:23 Pm ‘ Rr _
Hon. Timothy Volkmann.
Superior Court Judge
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Tanzeel Hak
Attorney for Defendant
Shahram Tabatabai
Robert Lindow
In pro per
Order Granting Jeanne Turner Tabatabai’s
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
18CV02004
Page 5PROOF OF SERVICE
CASE NAME: MALEKSALEHI V. SHAHRAM TABATABAL, et al.
COURT: Superior Court of California, Santa Cruz
CASE NO.: 18CV02004
I, the undersigned, certify that | am employed in the City and County of Santa Cruz,
California; that | am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within action; and that my
business address is 55 River Street, Suite 100, Santa Cruz, CA 95060. On this date, I served the
following document(s):
Notice of Entry of Judgment or Order (Order Granting Jeanne Tabatabai’s Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings)
—: By Personal Service — by placing true copies thereof in a sealed envelope and causing each
such envelope to be given to a courier messenger to personally deliver to the office of the addressee.
By First-Class Mail — by placing true copies thereof in sealed envelopes addressed as shown
below by the following means of service. I am readily familiar with the firm’s practice for collection
and processing of correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, the correspondence is deposited
with the United States Postal Service on the same day as collected, with first-class postage thereon
fully prepaid, in Santa Cruz, California, for mailing to the office of the addressee following ordinary
business practices, and
X_: By Email: From lesleyharrisesg@gmail.com to the email addresses below, at or about 3.45
p.m. A copy of the email transmission confirmation is attached to the original of this declaration.
Addressee
Counsel for Shahram Tabatabai
Tanzeel Hak
940 Saratoga Ave., #112
San Jose, CA 95129
tanzeel@bythelaw.co
Robert Lindow, In Pro Per
P.O. Box 2107
Aptos, CA 95001
lindow1@gmail.com
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed September 22, 2022
at Santa Cruz, California.
PROOF OF SERVICE
18CV02004
Preview
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address) Lesley B. Harris (SBN 124248) Law Office of Lesley Harris 55 River St., #100 Santa Cruz, CA 95060 TELEPHONE NO.:831-458-0502 x120 E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optional): |eslevharrisesa@amail.com ATTORNEY FOR (Name): Defendant Jeanne Turner Tabatabai SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ STREET ADDRESS: 701 Ocean St. MAILING ADDRESS: FOR COURT USE ONLY FAX NO. (Optional) CITY AND ZIP CODE: Santa Cruz, CA 95060 BRANCH NAME: PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Shahram Tabatabai DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Jeanne Turner Tabatabai CIV-130 NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER CASE NUMBER (Check one): [0¢] UNLIMITED CASE CCuimitep case 18Cv02004 (Amount demanded (Amount demanded was exceeded $25,000) $25,000 or less) TO ALL PARTIES : 4. A judgment, decree, or order was entered in this action on (date): 9/12/22 2. A copy of the judgment, decree, or order is attached to this notice. Date: 9/22/22 ‘ Lesley B. Harris > Ao a\ (TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF [_ ] ATTORNEY PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY) Cc) \ (SIGNATURE) Form Approved for Optional Use Judicial Council of California Page 1 of 2 NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER IV-130 [New January 1, 2010] wunw.courts.ca.govOA BW Bee CO wm aD ELECTRONICALLY RECEIVED 9/8/2022 3:19 PM Electronically Filed Superior Court of California Lesley B. Harris (SBN 124248) 55 River Street, Suite 100 County of Santa Cruz Santa Cruz, California 95060 September 12, 2022 Telephone: 831-458-0502 Nee vo, Clerk Email: lesleyharrisesq@gmail.com , Salsedo, Declan 9/12/2022 12:05:29 PM Attorney for Defendant, Cross-complainant and Cross-defendant JEANNE TURNER TABATABAL SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ Case No.: 18CV02004 NEMAT MALEKSALEHI, ORDER GRANTING JEANNE Plaintiff, TABATABAI’S MOTION FOR v. JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS SHAHRAM TABATABAL, an individual; JEANNE TURNER TABATABAI, an individual, and DOES | through 10, inclusive, Defendants. AND RELATED CLAIMS SS SS SSS ee Defendant Jeanne Turner Tabatabai’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings came on regularly for hearing August 29, 2022 in Department 5 of this Court, Honorable Timothy Volkmann presiding. Lesley Harris appeared for moving party Defendant Jeanne Turner Order Granting Jeanne Turner Tabatabai’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 18CV02004 PagelTabatabai. Tanzeel Hak of By the Law, PC appeared for opposing party former Defendant, now Plaintiff, Shahram Tabatabai. Defendant Robert Lindow appeared in pro per. Having read and considered the Motion, the Memoranda in support and in opposition, and Request for Judicial Notice filed by Defendant Turner, and having heard argument of counsel, IT IS ORDERED THAT: The motion is granted. The Court finds that the claims assigned by Maleksalehi to Tabatabai pursuant to their settlement agreement are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the family law court; and that Tabatabai is collaterally estopped from pursuing these claims by prior decisions made by this Court and others, in which these same claims were found to be in the exclusive jurisdiction of the family law court. The only alleged remaining debt to Maleksalehi is a community debt; and the business valuations and the equalization/distribution of community assets and debts of Tabatabai and Turner are issues that have been reserved by the family law court for final determination, and have yet to be decided. The Court does not find any of Mr. Tabatabai’s arguments in opposition to this motion persuasive: Tabatabai argues that he may pursue the assigned claims in this court, because he stands in the shoes of the assignor, Maleksalehi; and that under Civ. Code $368, 1459 he takes the assigned rights only subject to the defenses that existed prior to the notice of assignment. Because Turner did not have any defense against Malek related to res judicata or jurisdiction prior to receiving notice of eh assignment on February 24, 2002, Tabatabai argues that he is not subject to these defenses of res judicata or jurisdiction. An assignee stands in the shoes of the Order Granting Jeanne Turner Tabatabai’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 1L8CVO2004 Page2Bw hw assignor with respect to the assignor’s right to recover his or her own property, not for other purposes unrelated to the assignor’s right to recover property. Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1756, AFL-CIO v Sup. Ct. of L.A. (2009) 46 Cal. 4th 993, 1001-10002. Malek’s right to bring a civil claim, as a non-spouse party, is not a property right which can be transferred to Tabatabai by an assignment. Tabatabai argues that subject matter jurisdiction over the assigned claims has already attached in this action, as confirmed by this Court’s ruling in overruling Turner’s demurrer to Malek’s complaint; and that once subject matter jurisdiction is established it continues. Civ. Code §451.50. Subject matter jurisdiction was not raised by the demurrer to Malek’s complaint, nor was it an issue at that point. However, subject matter jurisdiction is never waived. Costa v Bonta (98 Cal. App. 2d 181, 182. When an assignment triggers exclusive jurisdiction in another court under] a specific statute (e.g. bankruptcy court of the family law court), the more specific statute controls over Civ. Code §451.50. See Smith v Sup. Ct. (1977) 68 Cal. App. 3d 457; Moreover, the family law court took jurisdiction over Tabatabai's claims that Turner interfered with the sale of Enabledware when he raised these claims in that court in 2016, two years before Malek filed this action. The first forum in which jurisdiction attaches retains it exclusively. MH Golden Construction Co. v Sup. Ct. of Imperial Valley (1950) 98 Cal. App. 2d 811, 815-816. Tabatabai asserts that the ruling on Turner’s demurrer to Tabatabai’s cross-complaint is not res judicata, and does not prevent Tabatabai from pursuing Malek’s assigned claims, because the cross-complaint had eight causes of action; Malek’s complaint has only four causes of action; two of Tabatabai’s causes of action include “conspiracy”, which are not included in Order Granting Jeanne Turner Tabatabai’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 18CV02004 Page 3Malek’s complaint; and therefore only two causes of action (for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty) overlap. The fact that allegations of “conspiracy” (with Lindow) have been included in Tabatabai’s two interference claims does not change the core allegations against Turner for interfering with the sale of Enabledware.—claims which this court and others have found to be in the exclusive jurisdiction of the family law court. Tabatabai ignores the fact that the San Mateo court’s ruling on the demurrer to his complaint against Turner in that court, which is based on the same four claims Malek has made against Turner in the Complaint, is res judicata as to these assigned claims. Tabatabai asserts that the past litigation is not comparable, and is not res judicata, because (1) none of these cases involved assigned rights; and (2) in the Envision Media case the Court was unaware of an agreement between the parties to have the motion to dismiss heard first, and the demurrer was sustained “without prejudice to allowing Tabatabai to pursue the action again, if necessary”. Whether the prior actions involved assigned rights has no bearing on whether these actions are res judicata as to the claims Tabatabai now wishes to pursue. With respect to the Envision Media action, Tabatabai filed his motion to dismiss the action after Turner filed her demurrer with a request for fees/sanctions under CCP $128.5. It was within the Court’s discretion to hear the demurrer first, so that Turner’s request for fess could be addressed, Additionally, Tabatabai is incorrect on stating that the demurrer was sustained “without prejudice..”. Judge Connolly’s May 4 2021 Order very clearly states that “the unopposed demurrer is sustained, without leave to amend, for lack of jurisdiction”. Finally, Tabatabai appears to argue that this Court should consolidate his assigned claims with the dissolution action in order to avoid the bar of the statute of limitations on his claims for interference with contract and prospective economic advantage, and for breach of fiduciary duty; Order Granting Jeanne Turner Tabatabai’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 18CV02004 Page 4oO IND HW B® however, he simultaneously asserts that consolidation “may not be appropriate, considering none of the elements are present to allow it”, Tabatabai has presented no basis for consolidation, nor is it appropriate since these assigned claims are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the family law court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Judgment of dismissal with prejudice be entered in favor of Defendant Jeanne Turner Tabatabai and against Plaintiff Shahram Tabatabai, pursuant to C.C.P. §438(h)(3), and that Defendant Jeanne Turner Tabatabai be awarded her case costs recoverable under C.C.P. §§1032, 1033.5, subject to submission of a memorandum of costs and any motion to tax. IT IS SO ORDERED. —— Date: "92022 1:59:23 Pm ‘ Rr _ Hon. Timothy Volkmann. Superior Court Judge APPROVED AS TO FORM Tanzeel Hak Attorney for Defendant Shahram Tabatabai Robert Lindow In pro per Order Granting Jeanne Turner Tabatabai’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 18CV02004 Page 5PROOF OF SERVICE CASE NAME: MALEKSALEHI V. SHAHRAM TABATABAL, et al. COURT: Superior Court of California, Santa Cruz CASE NO.: 18CV02004 I, the undersigned, certify that | am employed in the City and County of Santa Cruz, California; that | am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within action; and that my business address is 55 River Street, Suite 100, Santa Cruz, CA 95060. On this date, I served the following document(s): Notice of Entry of Judgment or Order (Order Granting Jeanne Tabatabai’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings) —: By Personal Service — by placing true copies thereof in a sealed envelope and causing each such envelope to be given to a courier messenger to personally deliver to the office of the addressee. By First-Class Mail — by placing true copies thereof in sealed envelopes addressed as shown below by the following means of service. I am readily familiar with the firm’s practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, the correspondence is deposited with the United States Postal Service on the same day as collected, with first-class postage thereon fully prepaid, in Santa Cruz, California, for mailing to the office of the addressee following ordinary business practices, and X_: By Email: From lesleyharrisesg@gmail.com to the email addresses below, at or about 3.45 p.m. A copy of the email transmission confirmation is attached to the original of this declaration. Addressee Counsel for Shahram Tabatabai Tanzeel Hak 940 Saratoga Ave., #112 San Jose, CA 95129 tanzeel@bythelaw.co Robert Lindow, In Pro Per P.O. Box 2107 Aptos, CA 95001 lindow1@gmail.com I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed September 22, 2022 at Santa Cruz, California. PROOF OF SERVICE 18CV02004