On July 09, 2018 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Lindow, Robert,
Tabatabai, Jeanne Turner,
Tabatabai, Shahram,
Maleksalehi, Nemat,
and
Tabatabai, Jeanne Turner,
Tabatabai, Shahram,
Turner Tabatabai, Jeanne,
for (06) Unlimited Breach of Contract / Warranty
in the District Court of Santa Cruz County.
Preview
1
Tanzeel Hak, State Bar No., 331248
2
By the Law, APC
940 Saratoga Ave., #112,
3 San Jose, CA 95129
Tel: (510) 362-6791
4
Email: tanzeel@bythelaw.co
5
6 Attorney for Sean Tabatabai,
7
Plaintiff, Cross-Complainant
and Cross-Defendant
8
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ
11
Unlimited Jurisdiction
12
13 NEMAT MALEKSALEHI, Case No.: 18CV02004
14 PLAINTIFF SHAHRAM
Plaintiff, TABATABAI’S OBJECTION TO
15 vs. CROSS-DEFENDANT ROBERT
LINDOW’S RESPONSE TO
16 MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
SHAHRAM TABATABAI, an individual; JEANNE
17 TURNER TABATABAI, an individual; and DOES Date: October 6, 2022
1 through 10 inclusive Time: 8:30 a.m.
18 Dept.: 5
Hon. Timothy Volkmann
19 Defendants.
____________________________________________
20 SHAHRAM TABATABAI,
21
Cross-Complainant,
22
vs.
23
24 JEANNE TURNER TABATABAI, an individual;
ROBERT LINDOW, an individual; DEBORAH
25
OLINYK, an individual, Any Cross-Defendant,
26 and ROES 1-15.
27 Cross-Defendants.
28
PLAINTIFF SHAHRAM TABATABAI’S OBJECTION TO CROSS-DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR SANCTIONS Page 1
1
2 JEANNE TURNER TABATABAI,
3
Cross-Complainant,
4 vs.
5
6
NEMAT MALEKSALEHI, SHAHRAM
TABATABAI, and ROES 1 through 10,
7
Cross-Defendants.
8
9
10
11 Cross-Complainant Shahram Tabatabai hereby respectfully submits the
12 following objection to Cross-Defendant Robert Lindow’s “Response to Motoin [sic] for
13 Sanctions” (“Opposition”).
14 1. Name of Document: RESPONSE TO MOTOIN FOR SANCTIONS
15
2. The objection herein relates to the document in its entirety.
16
Objection No. 1
17
Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(13)(b) provides, “Unless otherwise ordered or
18
specifically provided by law, all moving and supporting papers shall be served and
19
filed at least 16 court days before the hearing… All papers opposing a motion so noticed
20
shall be filed with the court and a copy served on each party at least nine court days.”
21
Cross-Defendant electronically served his Opposition on October 2, 2022. This is
22
only three (3) court days before the hearing date, which is set for October 6th. Therefore,
23
Lindow served his document several days late. Tabatabai is informed and believes that
24
this Court has not ordered any special deadlines for Lindow’s filing that would take
25
precedence over the pertinent Code of Civil Procedure section/s. Moreover, Cross-
26
Defendant has not provided any case law that would allow him to make an untimely
27 filing. Lastly, due to Cross-Defendant’s late filing and service, Tabatabai has not been
28 afforded his right to file a Reply (required to be filed five (5) court days before the
PLAINTIFF SHAHRAM TABATABAI’S OBJECTION TO CROSS-DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR SANCTIONS Page 2
hearing pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(13)(b)). Given that Lindow
1
served his Opposition three court days before the hearing, it would be impossible for
2
Tabatabai to file and serve a Reply five court days before the hearing.
3
For the reasons contained herein, this Court should disregard Cross-Defendant’s
4
entire argument and strike the entire Opposition.
5
6
Dated: October 3, 2022
7
8
___________________________________
9 Tanzeel Hak
Attorney for Shahram Tabatabai
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF SHAHRAM TABATABAI’S OBJECTION TO CROSS-DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR SANCTIONS Page 3
1 Service List
2
Lesley Harris
3 Law offices of Lesley Harris
55 River Street, Suite 100
4
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
5 Email: lesleyharrisesq@gmail.com
6 Robert Lindow
7
P.O. Box 2107
Aptos, CA 95001
8 Email: lindow1@gmail.com
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Nemat Maleksalehi vs Shahram Tabatabai (Service List) Page 1
Document Filed Date
October 03, 2022
Case Filing Date
July 09, 2018
Category
(06) Unlimited Breach of Contract / Warranty
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
1 Tanzeel Hak, State Bar No., 331248 2 By the Law, APC 940 Saratoga Ave., #112, 3 San Jose, CA 95129 Tel: (510) 362-6791 4 Email: tanzeel@bythelaw.co 5 6 Attorney for Sean Tabatabai, 7 Plaintiff, Cross-Complainant and Cross-Defendant 8 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ 11 Unlimited Jurisdiction 12 13 NEMAT MALEKSALEHI, Case No.: 18CV02004 14 PLAINTIFF SHAHRAM Plaintiff, TABATABAI’S OBJECTION TO 15 vs. CROSS-DEFENDANT ROBERT LINDOW’S RESPONSE TO 16 MOTION FOR SANCTIONS SHAHRAM TABATABAI, an individual; JEANNE 17 TURNER TABATABAI, an individual; and DOES Date: October 6, 2022 1 through 10 inclusive Time: 8:30 a.m. 18 Dept.: 5 Hon. Timothy Volkmann 19 Defendants. ____________________________________________ 20 SHAHRAM TABATABAI, 21 Cross-Complainant, 22 vs. 23 24 JEANNE TURNER TABATABAI, an individual; ROBERT LINDOW, an individual; DEBORAH 25 OLINYK, an individual, Any Cross-Defendant, 26 and ROES 1-15. 27 Cross-Defendants. 28 PLAINTIFF SHAHRAM TABATABAI’S OBJECTION TO CROSS-DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR SANCTIONS Page 1 1 2 JEANNE TURNER TABATABAI, 3 Cross-Complainant, 4 vs. 5 6 NEMAT MALEKSALEHI, SHAHRAM TABATABAI, and ROES 1 through 10, 7 Cross-Defendants. 8 9 10 11 Cross-Complainant Shahram Tabatabai hereby respectfully submits the 12 following objection to Cross-Defendant Robert Lindow’s “Response to Motoin [sic] for 13 Sanctions” (“Opposition”). 14 1. Name of Document: RESPONSE TO MOTOIN FOR SANCTIONS 15 2. The objection herein relates to the document in its entirety. 16 Objection No. 1 17 Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(13)(b) provides, “Unless otherwise ordered or 18 specifically provided by law, all moving and supporting papers shall be served and 19 filed at least 16 court days before the hearing… All papers opposing a motion so noticed 20 shall be filed with the court and a copy served on each party at least nine court days.” 21 Cross-Defendant electronically served his Opposition on October 2, 2022. This is 22 only three (3) court days before the hearing date, which is set for October 6th. Therefore, 23 Lindow served his document several days late. Tabatabai is informed and believes that 24 this Court has not ordered any special deadlines for Lindow’s filing that would take 25 precedence over the pertinent Code of Civil Procedure section/s. Moreover, Cross- 26 Defendant has not provided any case law that would allow him to make an untimely 27 filing. Lastly, due to Cross-Defendant’s late filing and service, Tabatabai has not been 28 afforded his right to file a Reply (required to be filed five (5) court days before the PLAINTIFF SHAHRAM TABATABAI’S OBJECTION TO CROSS-DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR SANCTIONS Page 2 hearing pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(13)(b)). Given that Lindow 1 served his Opposition three court days before the hearing, it would be impossible for 2 Tabatabai to file and serve a Reply five court days before the hearing. 3 For the reasons contained herein, this Court should disregard Cross-Defendant’s 4 entire argument and strike the entire Opposition. 5 6 Dated: October 3, 2022 7 8 ___________________________________ 9 Tanzeel Hak Attorney for Shahram Tabatabai 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLAINTIFF SHAHRAM TABATABAI’S OBJECTION TO CROSS-DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR SANCTIONS Page 3 1 Service List 2 Lesley Harris 3 Law offices of Lesley Harris 55 River Street, Suite 100 4 Santa Cruz, CA 95060 5 Email: lesleyharrisesq@gmail.com 6 Robert Lindow 7 P.O. Box 2107 Aptos, CA 95001 8 Email: lindow1@gmail.com 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Nemat Maleksalehi vs Shahram Tabatabai (Service List) Page 1