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 Shahram 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 ORDER ON PLAINTIFF
Plaintiff, SHAHRAM TABATABAI’S
15 vs. MOTION FOR SANCTIONS IN
THE AMOUNT OF $2925
16 AGAINST ROBERT LINDOW
SHAHRAM TABATABAI, an individual; JEANNE
17 TURNER TABATABAI, an individual; and DOES
1 through 10 inclusive
18
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
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF SHAHRAM TABATABAI’S 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 The matter of Plaintiff Shahram Tabatabai’s Motion for Sanctions against Robert
11 Lindow came on for hearing in Department 5 of this Court on October 6, 2022,
12 Honorable Timothy Volkmann presiding. Tanzeel Hak appeared on behalf of Shahram
13 Tabatabai to ensure that the tentative ruling was not contested. No other parties or their
14 attorneys of record appeared. Having read and considered the said Motion, the Mr.
15
Lindow’s Opposition, and Mr. Tabatabai’s Objection, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s
16
request be, and hereby is, GRANTED.
Shahram Tabatabai moves for sanctions of $2925 against Robert Lindow,
17
pursuant to CCP §128.7, for engaging in bad-faith actions and tactics that are frivolous
18
and for an improper purpose, by filing his Motion for Return of Property.
19
The Court finds that Mr. Tabatabai’s counsel (Tanzeel Hak) has complied with the safe
20
harbor provisions of §128.7 by serving Lindow with this motion on August 5, and
21
waiting beyond the 21 day safe harbor period to file the motion, on August 29, 2022.
22
The Court further finds that Mr. Lindow’s Motion for Return of Property violated
23
§128.7(b)(1)-(3), in that the allegations and factual contentions therein were without
24
evidentiary support, and were in fact demonstrably false based on the April 17, 2017
25
transcript of the hearing before Judge Almquist in the Tabatabai’s divorce proceedings;
26
the legal contentions therein were inapplicable and frivolous; and the motion therefore
27 appears to have been presented primarily for the improper purpose of harassment
28 and/or delay.
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF SHAHRAM TABATABAI’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS Page 2
The Court notes Mr. Tabatabai’s objection to Mr. Lindow’s untimely “Response”
1
to this motion, filed on October 4, 2022, only wo days before this hearing. Even if the
2
Court considers the untimely Response, Mr. Lindow’s arguments therein are not
3
persuasive. Mr. Lindow claims, without evidentiary support, that during a hearing
4
before Judge Marigonda, on some unspecified date, the Clerk informed him that the
5
hard drive (which Judge Almquist had previously ordered Lindow to deliver to the
6
Clerk’s office) had been removed from the clerk’s possession, but had been retrieved;
7
and that the clerk “informed Judge Marigonda” that Lindow could review the hard
8
drive at any time. He asserts that when he went to the clerk’s office to access the hard
9
drive he was informed that he would have to bring a motion—and so he brought the
10
Motion for Return of Property.
11 Even if any of this is true, the Clerk had no authority to override Judge
12 Almquist’s clear directive, after hearing Lindow’s testimony regarding his misuse of the
13 hard drive, that Lindow should not have further access to the hard drive. Any
14 confusion on the part of Judge Marigonda or the clerk on this point seems to have been
15 the result of Lindow’s concealment of, or failure to be forthcoming as to the fact that
16 Judge Almquist had ordered that Mr. Lindow not have further access to the hard drive.
17 Sanctions are therefore warranted, and the motion is granted.
18
19 Dated: October ___, 2022
20
_________________________________
21
Judge of the Superior Court
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF SHAHRAM TABATABAI’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS Page 3
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 Shahram 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 ORDER ON PLAINTIFF Plaintiff, SHAHRAM TABATABAI’S 15 vs. MOTION FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2925 16 AGAINST ROBERT LINDOW SHAHRAM TABATABAI, an individual; JEANNE 17 TURNER TABATABAI, an individual; and DOES 1 through 10 inclusive 18 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 ORDER ON PLAINTIFF SHAHRAM TABATABAI’S 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 The matter of Plaintiff Shahram Tabatabai’s Motion for Sanctions against Robert 11 Lindow came on for hearing in Department 5 of this Court on October 6, 2022, 12 Honorable Timothy Volkmann presiding. Tanzeel Hak appeared on behalf of Shahram 13 Tabatabai to ensure that the tentative ruling was not contested. No other parties or their 14 attorneys of record appeared. Having read and considered the said Motion, the Mr. 15 Lindow’s Opposition, and Mr. Tabatabai’s Objection, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s 16 request be, and hereby is, GRANTED. Shahram Tabatabai moves for sanctions of $2925 against Robert Lindow, 17 pursuant to CCP §128.7, for engaging in bad-faith actions and tactics that are frivolous 18 and for an improper purpose, by filing his Motion for Return of Property. 19 The Court finds that Mr. Tabatabai’s counsel (Tanzeel Hak) has complied with the safe 20 harbor provisions of §128.7 by serving Lindow with this motion on August 5, and 21 waiting beyond the 21 day safe harbor period to file the motion, on August 29, 2022. 22 The Court further finds that Mr. Lindow’s Motion for Return of Property violated 23 §128.7(b)(1)-(3), in that the allegations and factual contentions therein were without 24 evidentiary support, and were in fact demonstrably false based on the April 17, 2017 25 transcript of the hearing before Judge Almquist in the Tabatabai’s divorce proceedings; 26 the legal contentions therein were inapplicable and frivolous; and the motion therefore 27 appears to have been presented primarily for the improper purpose of harassment 28 and/or delay. ORDER ON PLAINTIFF SHAHRAM TABATABAI’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS Page 2 The Court notes Mr. Tabatabai’s objection to Mr. Lindow’s untimely “Response” 1 to this motion, filed on October 4, 2022, only wo days before this hearing. Even if the 2 Court considers the untimely Response, Mr. Lindow’s arguments therein are not 3 persuasive. Mr. Lindow claims, without evidentiary support, that during a hearing 4 before Judge Marigonda, on some unspecified date, the Clerk informed him that the 5 hard drive (which Judge Almquist had previously ordered Lindow to deliver to the 6 Clerk’s office) had been removed from the clerk’s possession, but had been retrieved; 7 and that the clerk “informed Judge Marigonda” that Lindow could review the hard 8 drive at any time. He asserts that when he went to the clerk’s office to access the hard 9 drive he was informed that he would have to bring a motion—and so he brought the 10 Motion for Return of Property. 11 Even if any of this is true, the Clerk had no authority to override Judge 12 Almquist’s clear directive, after hearing Lindow’s testimony regarding his misuse of the 13 hard drive, that Lindow should not have further access to the hard drive. Any 14 confusion on the part of Judge Marigonda or the clerk on this point seems to have been 15 the result of Lindow’s concealment of, or failure to be forthcoming as to the fact that 16 Judge Almquist had ordered that Mr. Lindow not have further access to the hard drive. 17 Sanctions are therefore warranted, and the motion is granted. 18 19 Dated: October ___, 2022 20 _________________________________ 21 Judge of the Superior Court 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER ON PLAINTIFF SHAHRAM TABATABAI’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS Page 3