This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 12/21/2016 at 11:21:34 (UTC).

SHAHROUZ JAHANSHAHI VS RODNEY T LEWIN

Case Summary

On 12/20/2016 SHAHROUZ JAHANSHAHI filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against RODNEY T LEWIN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4230

  • Filing Date:

    12/20/2016

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

JAHANSHAHI SHAHROUZ

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1-4

LEWIN RODNEY T

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

JAHANSHAHI SHAHROUZ

 

Court Documents

NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; AND DECLARATION OF RODNEY T. LEWIN IN SUPPORT THEREOF

3/1/2017: NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; AND DECLARATION OF RODNEY T. LEWIN IN SUPPORT THEREOF

DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT

3/1/2017: DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF

3/1/2017: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF

PROOF OF SERVICE?CIVIL

3/27/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE?CIVIL

Unknown

4/5/2017: Unknown

OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF?S COMPLAINT: MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF

4/12/2017: OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF?S COMPLAINT: MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF

FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR: 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT, ETC

6/6/2017: FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR: 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT, ETC

Proof of Service

6/14/2017: Proof of Service

Minute Order

6/21/2017: Minute Order

Minute Order

7/24/2017: Minute Order

NOTICE OF CONTINUED HEARING ON DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE RE PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

8/2/2017: NOTICE OF CONTINUED HEARING ON DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE RE PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; ETC.

8/10/2017: OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; ETC.

REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF ALLYSON P. WITTNER

8/16/2017: REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF ALLYSON P. WITTNER

Minute Order

8/23/2017: Minute Order

Unknown

10/11/2017: Unknown

NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAR BY TELEPHONE

10/23/2017: NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAR BY TELEPHONE

ORDER ON DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

11/16/2017: ORDER ON DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF MINUTE ORDER RE JUDGMENT AND ORDER ON DEMURRER AGAINST PLAINTIFF SHARHOUZ JAHANSHAHI

11/28/2017: NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF MINUTE ORDER RE JUDGMENT AND ORDER ON DEMURRER AGAINST PLAINTIFF SHARHOUZ JAHANSHAHI

58 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 12/20/2016
  • Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC644230    Hearing Date: February 27, 2020    Dept: 25

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(CCP § 1008)

MOTION FOR OSC RE: CONTEMPT 

(CCP § 1209)

TENTATIVE RULING:

(1) Cross-Defendant Shahrouz Jahanshahi’s Motion for Reclassification of Action, or in the Alternative to Allow Discovery in Excess of the Limited Jurisdiction (deemed by the Court to be a Motion for Reconsideration) is DENIED.

(2) Cross-Defendant’s Motion for OSC re: Contempt is also DENIED.

Motion for Reconsideration

OPPOSITION: Filed on February 13, 2020    

REPLY: Filed on February 20, 2020

Motion for OSC re: Contempt

OPPOSITION: Filed on February 13, 2020    

REPLY: Filed on February 20, 2020

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On December 20, 2016, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Shahrouz Jahanshahi (“Cross-Defendant”) filed an action for breach of contract, common counts, fraud, general negligence and intentional tort against Defendant/Cross-Complainant Rodney Lewin (“Cross-Complainant”). On March 1, 2017, Cross-Complainant filed a Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendant seeking $10,273.15 in damages. On June 6, 2017, Cross-Defendant filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”).

On October 25, 2017, Judge Bowick in Department 19 sustained Cross-Complainant’s Demurrer to the FAC in its entirety without leave to amend and ordered him to submit a proposed judgment of dismissal. (10/25/17 Minute Order.) On November 16, 2017, Cross-Defendant’s FAC was dismissed with prejudice. (11/16/17 Minute Order.)

On August 15, 2018, the Court granted Cross-Complainant’s motion to reclassify the case from unlimited to limited jurisdiction. (8/15/18 Minute Order.)

On September 20, 2019, Cross-Defendant filed a motion to reclassify the action back to unlimited jurisdiction. After Cross-Complainant filed an opposition, the motion was withdrawn on October 16, 2019.

On December 10, 2019, the Court granted Cross-Complainant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the Cross-Complaint, finding that it was entitled to damages in the amount of $10,273.15, plus $4,057.87 in prejudgment interest. (12/10/19 Minute Order.) On December 27, 2019, Cross-Defendant filed a Motion for Reconsideration of that order, which is set for hearing on July 9, 2020.

On January 24, 2020, Cross-Defendant re-filed the instant Motion for Reclassification of Action or, in the Alternative, to Allow Discovery in Excess of Limited Jurisdiction (the “Reclassification Motion”). Cross-Defendant also filed a Motion for OSC re: Contempt (the “Contempt Motion”) (collectively, the “Motions”). On February 13, 2020, Cross-Complainant filed an Opposition to both the Reclassification Motion and the Contempt Motion, as well as a Request for Judicial Notice. On February 20, 2020, Cross-Defendant filed a Reply to each.

  1. Service of the Moving Papers

Code of Civil Procedure section 1005 requires that all moving and supporting papers for a motion be served and filed at least 16 court days before the hearing on that motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).) “The moving and supporting documents served shall be a copy of the papers filed or to be filed with the court.” (Id.) (Italics added.)

Here, Cross-Defendant did not file a proof of service for neither the Reclassification Motion nor the Contempt Motion. However, “[i]t is well-settled that the appearance of a party at the hearing of a motion and his or her opposition to the motion on its merits is a waiver of any defects or irregularities in the notice of motion. [Citations.]” (Alliance Bank v. Murray (1984) 161 Cal.App.3d 1, 7.) Because Cross-Complainant filed an opposition to both Motions, he has waived any challenges to deficiencies in notice.

  1. Motion for Reconsideration

  1. Cross-Complainant’s Request for Judicial Notice

Cross-Complainant’s request for judicial notice of twelve (12) documents previously filed in this action is GRANTED. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).)

  1. Legal Standard 

Code of Civil Procedure section 1008 provides, in pertinent part:

(a) When an application for an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or in part, or granted, or granted conditionally, or on terms, any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after serviceupon the party of written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, make application to the same judge or court that made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order. The party making the application shall state by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown.

(e) This section specifies the court’s jurisdiction with regard to applications for reconsideration of its orders and renewals of previous motions, and applies to all applications    to reconsider any order of a judge or court, or for the renewal of a previous motion, whether the order deciding the previous matter or motion is interim or final. No application to reconsider any order or for the renewal of a previous motion may be considered by any judge   or court unless made according to this section.”

(Code Civ. Proc. § 1008, subd. (a), (e).)  

  1. Discussion

Cross-Defendant argues reclassification of this action to limited jurisdiction was improper because Cross-Complainant moved for reclassification after he completed extensive discovery, because Cross-Complainant did not timely move for reclassification, and because Cross-Complainant did not comply with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 403.040, resulting in prejudice to Cross-Defendant. (Mot., p. 3.) Based on this language, it is clear that Cross-Defendant is seeking reconsideration of the Court’s August 15, 2018 Order granting Cross-Complainant’s motion for reclassification of the matter as a limited case.  (See City and County of San Fransisco v. Muller (1960) 177 Cal.App.2d 600, 603 [holding that “the nature of a motion is determined by the nature of the relief sought, not by the label attached to it”].) Thus, the Court deems this to be a motion for reconsideration.

Cross-Defendant’s Motion does not comply with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1008, subdivision (a). Specifically, Cross-Defendant was mailed notice of the Court’s Order granting the motion for reclassification on August 16, 2018, but did not bring a motion for reconsideration within 10 days after service of notice. (See 8/16/18 Notice of Ruling.) As such, it is untimely. However, even if the Motion was timely, Section 1008 requires that a motion for reconsideration contain “new or different facts, circumstances or law” as well as a “satisfactory explanation for the failure to produce that evidence at an earlier time.” (Schiffer v. CBS Corp. (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 246, 255.) Cross-Defendant does not provide any new circumstances or law, and instead makes several of the same arguments that have already been considered and rejected by the Court. Further, Cross-Defendant should have made this motion to “to the same judge or court that issued the order,” that is, Judge Bowick, but failed to do so.  

Thus, Cross-Defendant’s Motion does not comply with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1008. As “no application to reconsider any order…may be considered by any judge or court unless made according to [Section 1008],” Cross-Defendant’s Motion is DENIED.  

  1. Request to Expand Discovery

Cross-Defendant also argues that if the Court does not reclassify the action, it should grant him the opportunity to conduct discovery beyond the limitations applicable to limited jurisdiction cases. (Mot., p. 4.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 95 provides that:

“(a) The court may, on noticed motion and subject to such terms and conditions as are just, authorize a party to conduct additional discovery, but only upon a showing that the moving party will be unable to prosecute or defend the action effectively without the additional discovery. In making a determination under this section, the court shall take into account whether the moving party has used all applicable discovery in good faith, and whether the party has attempted to secure the additional discovery by stipulation or by means other than formal discovery.”

(Code Civ. Proc., § 95, subd. (a).) (Italics added.)

Cross-Defendant argues the Court should grant his request for additional discovery because it is needed to effectively prosecute or defend the case and because Cross-Complainant conducted extensive discovery before the case was reclassified, and he should be given the same opportunity to do so. (Mot., p. 4.) However, this is unpersuasive. Cross-Defendant had the same opportunity to conduct discovery as Cross-Complainant during the time the matter was classified as an unlimited jurisdiction case. He further argues that this is a “complex case” that requires extensive discovery. (Id., Jahanshahi Decl., ¶ 11.) To the extent Cross-Defendant is attempting to argue additional discovery is needed to support the claims in his FAC, this is also unpersuasive as the FAC has been dismissed. The remaining operative pleading is the Cross-Complaint seeking damages of only $10,273.15. (Oppo., p. 9.) Cross-Defendant has only generally stated that he needs additional discovery, but has not demonstrated why discovery beyond what is permitted in limited jurisdiction is necessary to defend against the allegations in the Cross-Complaint.

Thus, Cross-Defendant’s request for additional discovery is DENIED.

  1. Cross-Complainant’s Request for OSC re: Whether Sanctions Should be Imposed on Cross-Defendant

In its Opposition, Cross-Complainant argues that Cross-Defendant’s Motion is a violation of Code of Civil Procedure sections 128.5, 128.7 and 1008 and requests that the Court issue an Order to Show Cause re: Sanctions. (Oppo., p. 11.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 1008, subdivision (b), provides that “[a] .” However, a request for sanctions pursuant to Code 128.7 must be made “separately from other motions or requests…” (Code Civ. Proc., § 128.7, subd. (c)(1).) As Cross-Complainant’s request for sanctions was made in the Opposition and not by a separately noticed motion, his request is DENIED on this basis.

If Cross-Complainant wishes to seek sanctions against Cross-Defendant, he should do it by a separate, properly noticed motion.

  1. Cross-Defendant’s Motion for OSC re: Contempt

  1. Cross-Complainant’s Request for Judicial Notice

Cross-Complainant request for judicial notice of five (5) documents previously filed in this action is GRANTED. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).)

  1. Cross-Complainant’s Evidentiary Objections to Cross-Defendant’s Declaration

On the objections raised by Cross-Complainant regarding Cross-Defendant’s declaration, the Court rules as follows:

Objection 1 is sustained as to the following: “In that hearing, the Court admonished [Cross-Complainant’s counsel] to be professional, to adhere to and obey all of the rules, and statutes,” and is overruled as to the remaining text.

Objections 2, 3, 4, and 5 are sustained.

  1. Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 1209, subdivision (a) outlines the acts or omissions that constitute contempt court, which include the “[a]buse of process of proceedings of the court, or falsely pretending to act under the authority of an order or process of the court and “disobedience of any lawful judgment, order, or process of the Court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1209, subd. (a)(4)-(5).)

Code  of Civil Procedure section 1211 provides:

“(a) When a contempt is committed in the immediate view and presence of the court, or of the judge at chambers, it may be punished summarily; for which an order must be made, reciting the facts as occurring in such immediate view and presence, adjudging that the person proceeded against is thereby guilty of a contempt, and that he or she be punished as therein prescribed. When the contempt is not committed in the immediate view and presence of the court, or of the judge at chambers, an affidavit shall be presented to the court or judge of the facts constituting the contempt, or a statement of the facts by the referees or arbitrators, or other judicial officers.”

(Code Civ. Proc., § 1211, subd. (a).)

Los Angeles County Local Rule 3.11 states that an OSC regarding contempt will issue if the supporting affidavit is sufficient.

  1. Discussion

The Court notes that in his reply papers, Cross-Defendant filed an additional declaration and attached exhibits. (Reply, Jahanshahi Decl.) However, because new evidence is not allowed in reply papers, the Court does not consider it. (See e.g. Jay v. Mahaffey (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1537-38.)

Cross-Defendant argues that Cross-Complainant and his attorney, Allyson P. Wittner (“Wittner”) have committed indirect contempt of court by misleading the Court, disobeying a court order, and “willingly, intelligently, and flagrantly” misquoting cited authority on more than three occasions in moving papers. (Contempt Mot., p. 8.) Although Cross-Defendant does not specify which subdivision of Section 1209 he alleges Cross-Complainant violated, it appears that he seeks contempt pursuant to subdivision (a)(4) and (a)(5).

After reviewing the evidence, the Court does not find that Cross-Complainant’s conduct warrants issuing an OSC re: Contempt. First, Cross-Defendant’s Motion largely recites statutes and cases, but does not apply the facts to the law cited, making it difficult to evaluate his arguments. To the extent he argues that Cross-Complainant’s inadvertent use of the word “summary adjudication” instead of the word “summary judgment” misrepresents the law and rises to the level of contempt, the Court disagrees. Motions for summary judgment and summary adjudication both enable the court to determine whether the opposing part lacks evidentiary support for their action. The difference is that a motion summary judgment asks the Court to determine the entire action, while a motion for summary adjudication asks the court to adjudicate the merits of a particular cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (a), (f).)

In addition, Cross-Defendant does not set forth sufficient facts that would support a finding of contempt. While it is true that the Court noted Cross-Complainant’s “repeated, documented disregard for procedural rules” and stated that it would be “more inclined to determine [Cross-Complainant’s] future procedural errors [were] committed willingly based on this history of conduct” (12/10/19 Minute Order) (italics added), Cross-Defendant has not demonstrated violations of procedural or court rules since then. Instead, Cross-Defendant relies on Cross-Complainant’s violation of two California Rules of Court noted in the December 10th Order. These violations resulted from Cross-Complainant’s failure to provide an electronic version of a separate statement and failure to bind, and include a table of contents for, evidence in support of his motion for summary judgment. (Contempt Mot., Jahanshahi Decl., ¶ 8; 12/10/19 Minute Order.) Further, Cross-Defendant has not provided any evidence or sufficiently identified a specific Court order that has been violated by Cross-Complainant.

Thus, Cross-Defendant’s Motion for OSC re: Contempt is DENIED.

  1. Cross-Complainant’s Request for Sanctions

Cross-Complainant also argues that the Court should order sanctions and attorney’s fees in favor of him because the Court has previously “cautioned” Cross-Defendant about being sanctioned if he filed a potentially frivolous or unmeritorious motion. (Oppo., p. 14-15.)

As noted above, Cross-Complainant should file a separate, properly noticed motion for sanctions.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons:

(1) Cross-Defendant Shahrouz Jahanshahi’s Motion for Reclassification of Action, or in the Alternative to Allow Discovery in Excess of the Limited Jurisdiction (deemed by the Court to be a Motion for Reconsideration) is DENIED.

(2) Cross-Defendant’s Motion for OSC re: Contempt is also DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: BC644230    Hearing Date: December 10, 2019    Dept: 94

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATION

(CCP § 437c)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Cross-complainant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, or alternatively Summary Adjudication of Issues, is CONTINUED TO MARCH 3, 2020 at 10:30 in Dept. 94. Cross-defendant is to file his Answer to the Cross-complaint within 10 days of this order.

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

Plaintiff Shahrouz Jahanshahi commenced this lawsuit against Defendant Rodney T. Lewin based on Defendant’s representation of Plaintiff. On November 6, 2017, the Court sustained Defendant’s demurrer without leave as to Plaintiff’s first amended complaint.

Defendant/Cross-complainant filed a cross-complaint on March 1, 2017 for collection from Plaintiff/Cross-defendant for Cross-complainant’s services from the representation.

II. Legal Standard

“The motion for summary judgment shall be granted if all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law . . . .” (CCP § 437c(c).) “The purpose of the law of summary judgment is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute. [Citation.]” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) In analyzing a motion for summary judgment, the court must apply a three-step analysis: “(1) identify the issues framed by the pleadings; (2) determine whether the moving party has negated the opponent’s claims; and (3) determine whether the opposition has demonstrated the existence of a triable, material factual issue.” (Hinesley v. Oakshade Town Center (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 289, 294.)

“[A] plaintiff bears the burden of persuasion that ‘each element of’ the ‘cause of action’ in question has been ‘proved,’ and hence that ‘there is no defense’ thereto. [Citation.]” (Welborne v. Ryman-Carroll Foundation (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 719, 724.) “In attempting to achieve this goal, the plaintiff has the initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact. [Citation.] If the plaintiff meets this burden, then the burden of production shifts to the defendant to establish the existence of a triable issue of material fact. [Citation.]” (Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 1068, 1077.) “There is a triable issue of material fact if, and only if, the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the motion in accordance with the applicable standard of proof. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (Gabrielle A. v. County of Orange (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1268, 1282.)

“In examining the supporting and opposing papers, the moving party’s affidavits or declarations are strictly construed and those of his opponent liberally construed, and doubts as to the propriety of granting the motion should be resolved in favor of the party opposing the motion.” (Kaplan v. LaBarbera (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 175, 179.)

III. Analysis

A review of the Court’s file shows Cross-defendant never filed an Answer to the Cross-complaint.

If a defendant files a cross-complaint against another defendant or the plaintiff, a default may be entered against that party on that cross-complaint if the plaintiff or that cross-defendant has been served with that cross-complaint and has failed to file an answer, demurrer, notice of motion to strike of the character specified in subdivision (f), notice of motion to transfer pursuant to Section 396b, notice of motion to dismiss pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 583.210) of Chapter 1.5 of Title 8, notice of motion to quash service of summons or to stay or dismiss the action pursuant to Section 418.10, or notice of the filing of a petition for a writ of mandate as provided in Section 418.10 within the time specified in the summons, or within another time period as may be allowed.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 585(e).)

Here, the defendant filed a cross-complaint against the plaintiff, but the plaintiff (Cross-defendant) failed to file an answer, or any of the other pleadings listed in section 585(e) within the applicable time period. Thus, a default may be entered against Cross-defendant on the cross-complaint.

However, the Court does not enter default against Cross-defendant on its own. Instead, the Court is inclined to continue this hearing, to allow Cross-defendant to file the answer that apparently was served on Cross-complainant—it appears Cross-defendant served the answer to Cross-complainant because Cross-complainant’s motion challenges specific affirmative defenses. Because the motion seeks adjudication of affirmative defenses, it is necessary that the Court have the pleading before it—neither party has attached a copy of the answer to the papers. By allowing Cross-defendant to file the answer with the Court before the Court rules on this motion, Cross-complainant suffers no unfair prejudice because it appears Cross-complainant has had timely notice of the answer.

IV. Conclusion

Accordingly, Cross-complainant’s motion for summary judgment, or alternatively adjudication of issues, is CONTINUED TO MARCH 3, 2020 at 10:30 AM IN Dept. 94. Cross-defendant is to file the answer with the Court within 20 days of this order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.