Preview
1
Tanzeel Hak, State Bar No., 331248
2
By the Law, APC
481 N. Santa Cruz Ave., #233
3 Los Gatos, CA 95030
Tel: (510) 362-6791
4
Email: tanzeel@bythelaw.co
5
6 Attorney for Sean Tabatabai,
7
Defendant, 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 DEFENDANT AND CROSS-
Plaintiff, COMPLAINANT SHAHRAM
15 vs. TABATABAI’S REPLY TO
ROBERT LINDOW’S
16 OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION
SHAHRAM TABATABAI, an individual; JEANNE TO CONTINUE TRIAL
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
DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT SHAHRAM TABATABAI’S REPLY TO ROBERT LINDOW’S OPPOSITION
TO THE MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL 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 TO ALL PARTIES AND ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
11 Defendant and Cross-Complainant Shahram Tabatabai respectfully submits this
12 Reply to Robert Lindow’s Opposition to the Motion to Continue Trial.
13 //////
14 //////
15
//////
16
//////
//////
17
//////
18
//////
19
//////
20
//////
21
//////
22
//////
23
//////
24
//////
25
//////
26
//////
27 //////
28
DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT SHAHRAM TABATABAI’S REPLY TO ROBERT LINDOW’S OPPOSITION
TO THE MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL Page 2
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
1
I. INTRODUCTION
2
To conserve this Court’s time and resources, the introduction section will only
3
include new facts that were not already provided in the ex parte application (now
4
deemed the “Motion”). On March 17, 2022, Tabatabai’s ex parte application came on for
5
hearing. At this time, both parties with interest in the continuance of trial, Cross-
6
Defendants Turner and Lindow opposed the possibility of continuing trial. Through
7
communications with Cross-Defendant Turner (through the parties’ counsel) over the
8
span of several days, it is Tabatabai’s understanding that Turner does not completely
9
oppose the idea of a trial continuance. On the other hand, Cross-Defendant Lindow still
10
opposes any continuance and has set conditions for his agreement to a continuance. The
11 conditions basically translate to dismiss me from the case, and I will agree to the
12 continuance. For that reason, his request was denied. There are ongoing negotiations
13 between Tabatabai and Turner (through counsel) as provided by the Declaration of
14 Tanzeel Hak filed concurrently.
15 II. ARGUMENT
16 A. STANDARD
17 California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332 (c) Grounds for continuance; Although
18 continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered
19 on its own merits. The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of
20
good cause requiring the continuance. Circumstances that may indicate good cause
include:
21
(1) The unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness because of death, illness, or
22
other excusable circumstances;
23
(2) The unavailability of a party because of death, illness, or other excusable
24
circumstances;
25
(3) The unavailability of trial counsel because of death, illness, or other excusable
26
circumstances;
27
(4) The substitution of trial counsel, but only where there is an affirmative showing that
28
the substitution is required in the interests of justice;
DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT SHAHRAM TABATABAI’S REPLY TO ROBERT LINDOW’S OPPOSITION
TO THE MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL Page 3
(5) The addition of a new party if:
1
(A) The new party has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and
2
prepare for trial; or
3
(B) The other parties have not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and
4
prepare for trial in regard to the new party's involvement in the case;
5
(6) A party's excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other
6
material evidence despite diligent efforts; or
7
(7) A significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which
8
the case is not ready for trial. (Subd (c) amended effective January 1, 2007; adopted effective
9
January 1, 2004.)
10
(d) Other factors to be considered
11 In ruling on a motion or application for continuance, the court must consider all the
12 facts and circumstances that are relevant to the determination. These may include:
13 (1) The proximity of the trial date;
14 (2) Whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial
15 due to any party;
16 (3) The length of the continuance requested;
17 (4) The availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the
18 motion or application for a continuance;
19 (5) The prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance;
20
(6) If the case is entitled to a preferential trial setting, the reasons for that status and
whether the need for a continuance outweighs the need to avoid delay;
21
(7) The court's calendar and the impact of granting a continuance on other pending
22
trials;
23
(8) Whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial;
24
(9) Whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance;
25
(10) Whether the interests of justice are best served by a continuance, by the trial of
26
the matter, or by imposing conditions on the continuance; and
27
(11) Any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or
28
application.
DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT SHAHRAM TABATABAI’S REPLY TO ROBERT LINDOW’S OPPOSITION
TO THE MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL Page 4
As provided in the Motion, Tabatabai has met his burden given all of the
1
circumstances that would apply in relation to the Code of Civil Procedure. Those
2
arguments will not be recited here, but this Court should note that Cross-Defendant
3
Lindow’s Opposition fails for several reasons.
4
i. Cross-Defendant Lindow’s contentions regarding this Court’s previous rulings are
5
not sound.
6
Cross-Defendant claims, “First, this court previously allowed Tabatabai to
7
amend his complaint with the condition that the last amendment was the last one
8
allowed. Tabatabai is now attempting to subvert this order...” (Opposition, page 2, lines
9
1-2).
10
Cross-Defendant has not provided a copy of this Order that allegedly tells that
11 Tabatabai could not make further amendments. The reason why Cross-Defendant has
12 not provided a copy of this Order is because it simply does not exist. Plaintiff assigned
13 his rights to Tabatabai only a few weeks ago. This Court has not even formally
14 substituted Tabatabai as the plaintiff in this action. Consequently, even at this time,
15 Tabatabai does not have “access” to Plaintiff’s Complaint. Therefore, no Order could
16 possibly exist that says Tabatabai cannot amend Plaintiff’s Complaint. Moreover, any
17 amendments to Plaintiff’s Complaint would require this Court’s permission, so Cross-
18 Defendant can oppose at that time.
19 Presumably, Cross-Defendant is wrongfully and confusingly using this Court’s
20
Order as it pertained to Tabatabai’s own Cross-Complaint. Plaintiff’s First Amended
Complaint has no association to Tabatabai’s Cross-Complaint as Cross-Defendant
21
attempts to argue. The rights are not the same. The individual who was injured is not
22
the same.
23
ii. Cross-Defendant’s next (second) argument is about whether facts existed previously
24
and Enabledware’s standing, which also fails.
25
Cross-Defendant states, “Tabatabai admits in his pleadings, that all the facts
26
existed at or before his last amended complaint was filed.” (Opposition, page 2, lines 5-
27
6).
28
DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT SHAHRAM TABATABAI’S REPLY TO ROBERT LINDOW’S OPPOSITION
TO THE MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL Page 5
The admission that the facts existed before does not serve any relevance as to the
1
Third Amended Cross-Complaint. Evidently, the facts would have had to exist before,
2
considering this loan is dated to several years ago, whether Tabatabai made an
3
“admission” or not. The “admission” is only a statement of the obvious. Regardless, if
4
Tabatabai did not have the rights to the First Amended Complaint, how would he have
5
asserted alter ego/joint venturer arguments for something he simply did not have
6
standing for? Those rights and the standing belonged to Plaintiff. Lindow fails to
7
explain how Tabatabai would have been able to pursue rights that did not belong to
8
him (Tabatabai). Cross-Defendant also fails to explain how the rights/theories could
9
have been pursued in Tabatabai’s Third Amended Cross-Complaint, yet Cross-
10
Defendant believes it could have happened.
11 Cross-Defendant adds, “Enabledware, LLC does not have the legal authority to
12 file any claims since it is not in good standing.” (Opposition, page 2, lines 9-10). Once
13 again, Tabatabai has difficulty responding to this since nowhere has it been claimed that
14 Enabledware is pursuing rights. Plaintiff is not “Enabledware.” The Plaintiff is Nemat
15 Maleksalehi.
16 iii. Cross-Defendant provides many sub-arguments in his “third argument,” but none of
17 them are substantiated or relevant.
18 Cross-Defendant argues that “defendants expended over $70,000, and Tabatabai
19 lost all his motions” (Opposition, page 2, line 16), “He wants a bigger piece of the
20
marital property than he presently has” (Opposition, page 2, line 19). In summary of his
third argument, Cross-Defendant refers to the contents of a San Mateo action and the
21
Tabatabai-Turner dissolution action in this Court and suggests that Tabatabai has ill
22
motives.
23
Cross-Defendant has failed to file a request for judicial notice for everything he
24
refers to in this argument. Even if this Court were to ignore the fact that there is no
25
request for judicial notice, Cross-Defendant still does not provide enough evidence to
26
substantiate anything he claims. The “$70,000” figure can be completely fictional as far
27
as the parties and this Court know. Cross-Defendant was also in pro per, and
28
considering he receives fee waivers for filings, he presumably had no legal costs
DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT SHAHRAM TABATABAI’S REPLY TO ROBERT LINDOW’S OPPOSITION
TO THE MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL Page 6
associated with the San Mateo action. Therefore, not only is he not included in the
1
arbitrary amount of “$70,000,” we are led to assume that he would have personal
2
knowledge of how much other defendants have spent on the action.
3
Moreover, since there is no judicial notice, this Court has no knowledge of all of
4
the motions actually pursued by Tabatabai and those that were denied. For Cross-
5
Defendant to claim that Tabatabai lost “all” of his motions is likely an exaggeration and
6
irrelevant.
7
Tabatabai wanting a “bigger piece” of the marital community is not
8
substantiated, or relevant. Cross-Defendant also has no standing to make this
9
argument. It should be noted that even Cross-Defendant Turner did not make this
10
argument, even though she actually would have the standing to, as a party to the
11 dissolution. Nevertheless, the argument related to the division of property is not sound.
12 It is arguable whether Cross-Defendant obtained a copy of the dissolution’s judgment
13 to even make this argument. If he did not, the argument made is without knowing the
14 realities. If he does have a copy, then his assertion fails since he would have knowledge
15 that the properties have been split in the dissolution already.
16 The only statement in this entire argument that can be verified and
17 acknowledged without requiring unnecessary work is that Tabatabai did in fact file an
18 action in San Mateo before.
19 iv. In his fourth and final argument, Cross-Defendant refers to Enabledware and
20
information that existed before.
This argument is essentially the same as the one provided in his second
21
argument, so Tabatabai incorporates the same response.
22
v. This Court should take into consideration that Cross-Defendant has not opposed most
23
of the Motion.
24
Without going into great detail, Cross-Defendant seemingly only focuses on
25
whether a Motion for Leave to Amend would be permissible. Tabatabai holds the
26
position that Cross-Defendant’s arguments would be better suited in an opposition to
27
that motion when it is eventually filed. Additionally, Cross-Defendant has not opposed
28
the remainder of the motion, so it could be believed that he agrees with most of it.
DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT SHAHRAM TABATABAI’S REPLY TO ROBERT LINDOW’S OPPOSITION
TO THE MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL Page 7
III. CONCLUSION
1
For all of the reasons contained herein, this Court should grant Tabatabai’s
2
Motion to Continue Trial.
3
4
Dated: March 23, 2022
5
6
_______________________________
7 Tanzeel Hak,
Attorney for Shahram Tabatabai
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT SHAHRAM TABATABAI’S REPLY TO ROBERT LINDOW’S OPPOSITION
TO THE MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL Page 8
1 Service List
2
Eric McAllister
3 Miller, Morton, Caillat & Nevis, LLP
2001 Gateway Place, Suite 220W,
4
San Jose, California 95110
5 Email: emcallister@millermorton.com
6
Lesley Harris
7 Law offices of Lesley Harris
55 River Street, Suite 100
8
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
9 Email: lesleyharrisesq@gmail.com
10
Robert Lindow
11 P.O. Box 2107
Aptos, CA 95001
12 Email: lindow1@gmail.com
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
Preview
1 Tanzeel Hak, State Bar No., 331248 2 By the Law, APC 481 N. Santa Cruz Ave., #233 3 Los Gatos, CA 95030 Tel: (510) 362-6791 4 Email: tanzeel@bythelaw.co 5 6 Attorney for Sean Tabatabai, 7 Defendant, 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 DEFENDANT AND CROSS- Plaintiff, COMPLAINANT SHAHRAM 15 vs. TABATABAI’S REPLY TO ROBERT LINDOW’S 16 OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION SHAHRAM TABATABAI, an individual; JEANNE TO CONTINUE TRIAL 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 DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT SHAHRAM TABATABAI’S REPLY TO ROBERT LINDOW’S OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL 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 TO ALL PARTIES AND ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 11 Defendant and Cross-Complainant Shahram Tabatabai respectfully submits this 12 Reply to Robert Lindow’s Opposition to the Motion to Continue Trial. 13 ////// 14 ////// 15 ////// 16 ////// ////// 17 ////// 18 ////// 19 ////// 20 ////// 21 ////// 22 ////// 23 ////// 24 ////// 25 ////// 26 ////// 27 ////// 28 DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT SHAHRAM TABATABAI’S REPLY TO ROBERT LINDOW’S OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL Page 2 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 1 I. INTRODUCTION 2 To conserve this Court’s time and resources, the introduction section will only 3 include new facts that were not already provided in the ex parte application (now 4 deemed the “Motion”). On March 17, 2022, Tabatabai’s ex parte application came on for 5 hearing. At this time, both parties with interest in the continuance of trial, Cross- 6 Defendants Turner and Lindow opposed the possibility of continuing trial. Through 7 communications with Cross-Defendant Turner (through the parties’ counsel) over the 8 span of several days, it is Tabatabai’s understanding that Turner does not completely 9 oppose the idea of a trial continuance. On the other hand, Cross-Defendant Lindow still 10 opposes any continuance and has set conditions for his agreement to a continuance. The 11 conditions basically translate to dismiss me from the case, and I will agree to the 12 continuance. For that reason, his request was denied. There are ongoing negotiations 13 between Tabatabai and Turner (through counsel) as provided by the Declaration of 14 Tanzeel Hak filed concurrently. 15 II. ARGUMENT 16 A. STANDARD 17 California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332 (c) Grounds for continuance; Although 18 continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered 19 on its own merits. The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of 20 good cause requiring the continuance. Circumstances that may indicate good cause include: 21 (1) The unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness because of death, illness, or 22 other excusable circumstances; 23 (2) The unavailability of a party because of death, illness, or other excusable 24 circumstances; 25 (3) The unavailability of trial counsel because of death, illness, or other excusable 26 circumstances; 27 (4) The substitution of trial counsel, but only where there is an affirmative showing that 28 the substitution is required in the interests of justice; DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT SHAHRAM TABATABAI’S REPLY TO ROBERT LINDOW’S OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL Page 3 (5) The addition of a new party if: 1 (A) The new party has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and 2 prepare for trial; or 3 (B) The other parties have not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and 4 prepare for trial in regard to the new party's involvement in the case; 5 (6) A party's excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other 6 material evidence despite diligent efforts; or 7 (7) A significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which 8 the case is not ready for trial. (Subd (c) amended effective January 1, 2007; adopted effective 9 January 1, 2004.) 10 (d) Other factors to be considered 11 In ruling on a motion or application for continuance, the court must consider all the 12 facts and circumstances that are relevant to the determination. These may include: 13 (1) The proximity of the trial date; 14 (2) Whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial 15 due to any party; 16 (3) The length of the continuance requested; 17 (4) The availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the 18 motion or application for a continuance; 19 (5) The prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance; 20 (6) If the case is entitled to a preferential trial setting, the reasons for that status and whether the need for a continuance outweighs the need to avoid delay; 21 (7) The court's calendar and the impact of granting a continuance on other pending 22 trials; 23 (8) Whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial; 24 (9) Whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; 25 (10) Whether the interests of justice are best served by a continuance, by the trial of 26 the matter, or by imposing conditions on the continuance; and 27 (11) Any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or 28 application. DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT SHAHRAM TABATABAI’S REPLY TO ROBERT LINDOW’S OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL Page 4 As provided in the Motion, Tabatabai has met his burden given all of the 1 circumstances that would apply in relation to the Code of Civil Procedure. Those 2 arguments will not be recited here, but this Court should note that Cross-Defendant 3 Lindow’s Opposition fails for several reasons. 4 i. Cross-Defendant Lindow’s contentions regarding this Court’s previous rulings are 5 not sound. 6 Cross-Defendant claims, “First, this court previously allowed Tabatabai to 7 amend his complaint with the condition that the last amendment was the last one 8 allowed. Tabatabai is now attempting to subvert this order...” (Opposition, page 2, lines 9 1-2). 10 Cross-Defendant has not provided a copy of this Order that allegedly tells that 11 Tabatabai could not make further amendments. The reason why Cross-Defendant has 12 not provided a copy of this Order is because it simply does not exist. Plaintiff assigned 13 his rights to Tabatabai only a few weeks ago. This Court has not even formally 14 substituted Tabatabai as the plaintiff in this action. Consequently, even at this time, 15 Tabatabai does not have “access” to Plaintiff’s Complaint. Therefore, no Order could 16 possibly exist that says Tabatabai cannot amend Plaintiff’s Complaint. Moreover, any 17 amendments to Plaintiff’s Complaint would require this Court’s permission, so Cross- 18 Defendant can oppose at that time. 19 Presumably, Cross-Defendant is wrongfully and confusingly using this Court’s 20 Order as it pertained to Tabatabai’s own Cross-Complaint. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint has no association to Tabatabai’s Cross-Complaint as Cross-Defendant 21 attempts to argue. The rights are not the same. The individual who was injured is not 22 the same. 23 ii. Cross-Defendant’s next (second) argument is about whether facts existed previously 24 and Enabledware’s standing, which also fails. 25 Cross-Defendant states, “Tabatabai admits in his pleadings, that all the facts 26 existed at or before his last amended complaint was filed.” (Opposition, page 2, lines 5- 27 6). 28 DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT SHAHRAM TABATABAI’S REPLY TO ROBERT LINDOW’S OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL Page 5 The admission that the facts existed before does not serve any relevance as to the 1 Third Amended Cross-Complaint. Evidently, the facts would have had to exist before, 2 considering this loan is dated to several years ago, whether Tabatabai made an 3 “admission” or not. The “admission” is only a statement of the obvious. Regardless, if 4 Tabatabai did not have the rights to the First Amended Complaint, how would he have 5 asserted alter ego/joint venturer arguments for something he simply did not have 6 standing for? Those rights and the standing belonged to Plaintiff. Lindow fails to 7 explain how Tabatabai would have been able to pursue rights that did not belong to 8 him (Tabatabai). Cross-Defendant also fails to explain how the rights/theories could 9 have been pursued in Tabatabai’s Third Amended Cross-Complaint, yet Cross- 10 Defendant believes it could have happened. 11 Cross-Defendant adds, “Enabledware, LLC does not have the legal authority to 12 file any claims since it is not in good standing.” (Opposition, page 2, lines 9-10). Once 13 again, Tabatabai has difficulty responding to this since nowhere has it been claimed that 14 Enabledware is pursuing rights. Plaintiff is not “Enabledware.” The Plaintiff is Nemat 15 Maleksalehi. 16 iii. Cross-Defendant provides many sub-arguments in his “third argument,” but none of 17 them are substantiated or relevant. 18 Cross-Defendant argues that “defendants expended over $70,000, and Tabatabai 19 lost all his motions” (Opposition, page 2, line 16), “He wants a bigger piece of the 20 marital property than he presently has” (Opposition, page 2, line 19). In summary of his third argument, Cross-Defendant refers to the contents of a San Mateo action and the 21 Tabatabai-Turner dissolution action in this Court and suggests that Tabatabai has ill 22 motives. 23 Cross-Defendant has failed to file a request for judicial notice for everything he 24 refers to in this argument. Even if this Court were to ignore the fact that there is no 25 request for judicial notice, Cross-Defendant still does not provide enough evidence to 26 substantiate anything he claims. The “$70,000” figure can be completely fictional as far 27 as the parties and this Court know. Cross-Defendant was also in pro per, and 28 considering he receives fee waivers for filings, he presumably had no legal costs DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT SHAHRAM TABATABAI’S REPLY TO ROBERT LINDOW’S OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL Page 6 associated with the San Mateo action. Therefore, not only is he not included in the 1 arbitrary amount of “$70,000,” we are led to assume that he would have personal 2 knowledge of how much other defendants have spent on the action. 3 Moreover, since there is no judicial notice, this Court has no knowledge of all of 4 the motions actually pursued by Tabatabai and those that were denied. For Cross- 5 Defendant to claim that Tabatabai lost “all” of his motions is likely an exaggeration and 6 irrelevant. 7 Tabatabai wanting a “bigger piece” of the marital community is not 8 substantiated, or relevant. Cross-Defendant also has no standing to make this 9 argument. It should be noted that even Cross-Defendant Turner did not make this 10 argument, even though she actually would have the standing to, as a party to the 11 dissolution. Nevertheless, the argument related to the division of property is not sound. 12 It is arguable whether Cross-Defendant obtained a copy of the dissolution’s judgment 13 to even make this argument. If he did not, the argument made is without knowing the 14 realities. If he does have a copy, then his assertion fails since he would have knowledge 15 that the properties have been split in the dissolution already. 16 The only statement in this entire argument that can be verified and 17 acknowledged without requiring unnecessary work is that Tabatabai did in fact file an 18 action in San Mateo before. 19 iv. In his fourth and final argument, Cross-Defendant refers to Enabledware and 20 information that existed before. This argument is essentially the same as the one provided in his second 21 argument, so Tabatabai incorporates the same response. 22 v. This Court should take into consideration that Cross-Defendant has not opposed most 23 of the Motion. 24 Without going into great detail, Cross-Defendant seemingly only focuses on 25 whether a Motion for Leave to Amend would be permissible. Tabatabai holds the 26 position that Cross-Defendant’s arguments would be better suited in an opposition to 27 that motion when it is eventually filed. Additionally, Cross-Defendant has not opposed 28 the remainder of the motion, so it could be believed that he agrees with most of it. DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT SHAHRAM TABATABAI’S REPLY TO ROBERT LINDOW’S OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL Page 7 III. CONCLUSION 1 For all of the reasons contained herein, this Court should grant Tabatabai’s 2 Motion to Continue Trial. 3 4 Dated: March 23, 2022 5 6 _______________________________ 7 Tanzeel Hak, Attorney for Shahram Tabatabai 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT SHAHRAM TABATABAI’S REPLY TO ROBERT LINDOW’S OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL Page 8 1 Service List 2 Eric McAllister 3 Miller, Morton, Caillat & Nevis, LLP 2001 Gateway Place, Suite 220W, 4 San Jose, California 95110 5 Email: emcallister@millermorton.com 6 Lesley Harris 7 Law offices of Lesley Harris 55 River Street, Suite 100 8 Santa Cruz, CA 95060 9 Email: lesleyharrisesq@gmail.com 10 Robert Lindow 11 P.O. Box 2107 Aptos, CA 95001 12 Email: lindow1@gmail.com 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