/

substantial noncompliance with

substantial noncompliance wirh his
his escrow
escrm:v obligations.
obligations. C\linetv ~ine Investments
C-Jinetv ~ine Investments Ltd.
Ltd. v.v.

22 OVdseas
Ovc:rseas ((,mier Service fSine-apore)
C('urier Service (SinQ:apore) Private.
Private, Ltd.
Ltd. (2003)
(2003) 113
113 Cal.Arp.4Th
Cal.Arp.4Th 1118,
1118, 1134:Galdjie
1134:Galdjie

33 :! \'.
v. Darwish (~OO.3)
(~OO.3) 11.'3 Cal.AppAth 1331, 1343.)
113 1343.)

44- The declarmions HershowiTZ, Victor Parks,

declaraTions of Gail HershowiTz, Parks, and
and :\1ari3
:\1aria McLaurin
McLaurin suppon
suppon the
the

:55 contention thm

that t\ts.
~ls. Samaan was not provided with aa fully
fully execmec1
executed purchase
purchase agreement
agreement, The
The

66 "Residenti:Jl
"Residcnti;;ll Purchase
PurchaSe Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions"
Instructions" in
in parricul:u·.
particlIl:u·. until
until some
some time
time

after 3:42 p.m. on October 22, 2004. These declarations

declarations are,
are, in
in tum.
tum. suppc
sUPPc1rted by rhe
1 ned. by rhe fax
fax from
from
88 ~'1s. HershovviTZ
r..1s. HershovviIZ aT :\'lara
:\Jara Escro\\
Escrow dated October 22,2004
22,2004 at 3:42
3:42 p.m.
p.m. (:\'1oving
(:\10ving Papers,
Papers. Exhibit
Exhibit
99 24) and the fax from Victor Parks to C('llnuywide
C(,tlnuyv,;ide ('n
(,n October
October 25,
25, 2004
2004 (Opposition,
(Opposition, Exhibit
Exhibit Fl.
Fl.
10
10 :'·1s,
:\1s. Hershowitz smtes
Slates rhat, at the time of her fax at
at .'3:42 p.m. on
3 :42 p.m. on October
October 22.
22. 2004,
2004, :\1r.
:\1r. Zc:mik
Zemik

1111 had continued to fail TO provide Mara Escro\\ \vith a fully exeCUTed
execUTed copy
copy of
obhe purchase
The purchase

12
12 agreemenT. ?,i1s. r.fcLaurin
agreemem. l,/Is. STaTeS Ihat.
p-.fcLaurin SLaleS by- Ocrober
Ihm. by October 25, 2004,
2004, all
a1110an approval conditions
loan approval condilions had
had II

13
13 been met by :\1s. Samaan except for rhe
the pro\'ision of aa fully
futty executed
executed purchase
purchase agreement.
agreement. Base(
Basel
14
14- on this evidence. the Court finds Thar Zernik's noncompliance caused
thar Mr. Zemik's caused the
the delay
delay by
by Ms.
Ms.
15
1:5 Samacl11
Sama311 in rem()ving
remc\\"ing dle
Tbe appraisal contingency.
contingency-.
16
16 A~ of October 15, 2004, Ms. Samaan had fulfilled all obligatic\ns.
As obligaric'llls. except
except for
for removal
removal of
of
17 the appraisal contingency. The appraisal comingency could not be l"emoyed
removed until
until Ms.
Ms. Samaan
Samaan

18
18 recc:ivej k1all
receivc:J k1J.ll appro\-al.
aprro\-al. Approval
ApprO\·al ohhe Country\Vid~ had
of The loan was delayed because Countrywide had not
not

Ie,.
1~ recei\'cd a fully executed copy of the purchase agreement. Despire
rc:cei\'ed Despite multiple r~quests by
multiple requests by Victor
Victor
20
20 Parks and,..'or ::Vls.
Parks and,..'or ::v1s. Samaan to l\-Jara
J\'1ara Escrow to provide the executed.
exeClltc:d purcl13se
purcl1.1SC: J.greement,
agrc:emem, itit was
was

21
21 not provided until the late aftemoon or ewning of October 22,
not provided 2004 because
22,2004 because Mr.
Mr. Zemik
Zemik had
had not
not
22 signed "Residemial Purcl1:l:3e
signed or iniTialed rhe "Residential Purchase Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions'·
InstrUCTions"' until
until

23 then. :\'ls. Samaan' s failure 10 remow

then. :\'1s. remoYe the appraisal contingency until 5: 18
18 p.m.
p.m. on
on OCTOber
OC1Ober 2.:'.
25.
24-
24 2004 was solely attributable to :\1r.
2004 ::VIr. Zc:mik'.s
Zelnik' s noncompliance and.
and, therefore.
therefore, she
she isis entitled
entitled uncler
uncler
2:5
25 the law TO
the 13\\' specific performance.
TO specific RepeJ.ted comemions by ::vrr.
performanCe. Rc:peared :\ir. Zemik that his signature
signature on
on the
the
26 second counter-offer
second counter-offer was sufticient
sLlfticient to complc:[c:
complete the purchase agreement is simply
simply not
not SUpp0l1cd
Suppolted
hy any
hy any autlwrity
autl1C'l"ity or
01" expert declaration,
declaration. but in fact is directly contradicted by the dec13n.tions
decbntiolls of
of

2a \ir. Parks
\1r. Parks :md
:'l11d :\ls. :\1cLaurin.

- L

295 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p295/679

I
 /

Additionally, 1-.-1s. Samaan

Additionally: 1\15. Samaan faxed
faxed her
her final
final contingency
contingency removal
removal to
to "\1ichael
SHchael Libow
Libow atat 5:5:18
18
22 p.m.
p.m. on
on October 25, 2004. 1\:t\1r.
October 25,2004. Zernik'ss cancellation
1r. Zernik' cancellation insTrucTions
insTruCTions were
were not
not faxed
faxed 10 :t\Js. Samaan
10 Ms. Samaan
33 by
by Mara
Mara Escrow
Escrow umil
umil 55:23 p.m. on
:23 p.m. on O..::rober
O..::wber 25,
25, 2004. \1r.
\1r. Zemik's
Zernik's contention
contention that
that he
he canceled
canceled
.l-l The
The deal
deal by
by fax
fax on
on Ocwber
OCTOber ~21. 200-1-. isis not
1. 200-L not supported
supported by
by The
The undispnted
undispnted record
record ()f evems. In
()f evems. In his
his
~ initial t~:Ix.
t~-1x. \Jr. Zernik simply'
simpl)' stated That he \\"ould
\\-ould be reqnesTing
reqnesTing that
that his
his realtor,
realtoL Mr.
Mr. Libo\\",
Libo\\",
66 prepare cal1<:dlation \-\-as followed
can"::cilation instructions. This fax was followed by
by ongoing
ongoing conversations
conversations bem"een
bem-een the
the

, panies regarding
w"larding docllillents. mc'sT. aa statement
doclUllents. This fax reflected, aT mc'sT. staknwnt of
of future
future aCTion,
action, "which
"\vhich did
did
88 not
lWl occur wltil October 25,2004. "Jothing
\rothing in \1r. Zernik's fClx
t'clx indicated
indicated that
1hat he
he was
was canceling
canceling

,j
cj eSCrL1\\
cSCw\\ immediate1)'
immediatel;' or as of that or any date.
10
10 Finally'.
Finally. :'dL
~(r. Zernik's indncement claim. based
Zemik's fraudulent indncemcnt based on
on an
an allegedly
allegedly fraudulent
fraudulent loan
loan

11jj lent?r r:'

prequalificarion lener b:' Victor Parks dated September 7, 2004,
2004. isis no
no more
more than
than aa red
red herring.
herring.
12
12 ~-Ir.
1vlr. Zernik
Zemik did nm cancel eSCrl)'" regarding 1\ls.
eSCf()\\" based on any question regarding :t\ls. Sanlaan's
Samaan's
13 2004. As set forth above, \ls.
prequalification in September ~I)04. \ls. Samaan
Samaan had
had clbrained
()bmined loan
loan approval
approval

14
14 on Ocwber 25, 2004 and final appro\-al
25,2004 29, 2004. before
appro\"al on October 29,2004. before the
the escrO\\"
escrO\\- c]clsing
cl()sing date
date of
of

15
15 ~ovember 1, 2004. ~h.
::Iovember ;-"h. S~U11aan
Sama..m has also pro"vided
provided uncontroverted evidence
evidence eSTablishing
establishing her
her
11:'
1t' current ability to
TO purchase the prL1peny.
pwpeny. (Canino Declaration.)

1"7
1"7 While there were dubious actions on both sides, it is uhimately
ultimately clear
clear thaI
that t\(r.
r-,[r. Zernik's
Zernik's

18
18 0\\"11 actions
0\\"11 caused the
The delay in loan apprO\dJ
apprO\dl and re-sulting
resulting delay in
in \ls.
\1s. Samaan's
Samaal1's ability
ability to
to

I Ll
jCl r~mo\"e
r~mo\-e the appraisal contingency-,
contingency, the concededly SC)]e-
SC.]e hasis
has is for 1\1r.
:t\1r. Zernik's
Zernik's cancellation
cancellation of
of
~o
20 ..:-scro\\". The evidence sbows thm
..:'scro\\-. thaT 1-1s.
l\As. Samaan was ready, \\"illing
\,-illing and able TO
TO compleTe
compleTe The
The

21
21 purchC\s~ by the 'November
purchJse November L 2004 c1os-ing
clos-jng dale :mJ is pr~sel1t1y
date ;mj presently ready, willing
willing and
and able
able as
as well.
well.
22 CO'!CLL'SIO'i
23
23 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff~i\"ie
plaintiff:.Ji\"ie Samaan"s motion
motion for
for summary
summary
24
24 judgment is
judgment GRAJ\"TED and that judgment shall be emered fOI1hwith in favor
is GRAJ\TED ofNivie Sama:m
favor ofNivie Sama:m
25
25 and against
and againST defendE:O(
defendROt Joseph Zernik
Zemik on the single cause of action fClr
t"l1r specific perfc)j1nance.
perfl1J1nance.
26
26
JACOUFI 1t>,]1=" A rmlP-IIIP
27
27 DaTed: August
Dmed: August 9,2007
9, }007
Hon.
Han. Jacqueline
Jacqueline A.
A. Connor
Connor
.:s .JJudge
udge M'
ofd1e Superior Co
the Sup t'rior un
Coun

• J

296 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p296/679

I
 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
EXHIBIT 4-e
28

INTERESTED PARTY JOSEPH H ZERNIK’S MOTIONS FOR MISTRIAL/SETTING ASIDE

Case No. BC351286
297 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p297/679
 From: Edward A. Hoffman 310-575-6107 To: Joseph Zernik Date: 8/21/2007 Time: 2:05:34 PM Page lof9

Law Offices of Edward A. Hoffman

11620 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 340
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Tel: 310-575-3540
Fax: 310-575-6107
FACSIMILE COVER PAGE

To: Joseph Zernik From: Edward A. Hoffman

Fax No: 1-801-998-0917 Pages: 9 (including cover)
Company:
Sent: 8/21/2007 at 2:05:30 PM

ISUbJect: August 9 Minute Order

MESSAGE:

CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION

The information contained in this facsimile transmission is legally privileged and confidential, and is intended solely for the use
298 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p298/679
of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us by telephone and return the
original message to us via U.S. Mail at the address listed above. Any use, distribution, dissemination or reproduction of this
 From: Edward A. Hoffman 310-575-6107 To: Joseph Zernik Dilte: 8/21/2007 Time: 2:05:34 PM Page 20f9

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

UATE, 08/09/07 DEPT. WEI

HONORABLE JACQUELINE A. CONNOR JUDGE V. JAIME DEPUTY CLERK

HOr;ORABLE JUDGE PRO TEM ELECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR

S. McWRIGHT CA Deputy Sheriff T. McCOWAN CSR#10147 Reporter

8:30 am SC087400 Plaintiff MOE KESHAVARZI (X)

Counsel ROBERG MUSSIG (X)
NIVIE SAMAAN
VS Defendant ZACHARY D. SCHORR (Xl
JOSEPH ZERNIK (X) Counsel JENNA MOLDAWSKY (Xl

INPROPRIA PERSONA
CCP 170.6 - JUDGE NEIDORF
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:
PLAINTIFF (NIVIE SAMAAN) MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT;
DEFENDANT'S (JOSEPH ZERNIK) MOTION TO LEAVE TO FILE
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Matters are called for hearing.

All parties acknOWledge receipt of the Court's
tentative ruling and the matter is argued.
The Court announces Its ruling as to Evidentry
Objections as follows:
Plaintiff's Evidentry Objections are SUSTAINED
except 3,6,8,10, 18, 23, 31, 32, 40, 44, 46, 49 and
50 are OVERRULED.
Defendant's Evidentry Objections are OVERRULED
except for 7, 31 (pg 30) and 35 (pg 31) are
SUSTAINED.
After argument, the Court adopts Its tentative
ruling as the final order of the Court as follows:
The motion of plaintiff Nivie Samaan for summary
judgment is GRANTED. The motion of defendant Joseph
Zernik for leave to file a First Amended Cross-
Complaint is DENIED. Counsel for plaintiff is
MINUTES ENTERED
Page 1 of 8 DEPT. WEI 08/09/07
COUNTY CLERK

299 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p299/679

 From: Edward A. Hoffman 310-575-6107 To: Joseph Zernik Date: 8/21/2007 Time: 2:05:34 PM Page 30f9

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DATE: 08/09/07 DEPT. WEI

HONORABLE JACQUELINE A. CONNOR JUDGE V. JAIME DEPUTY CLERK

HONORABLE JUDGE PRO TEM ELECfRONIC RECORDING MONITOR

S. McWRIGHT CA Deputy Sheriff T. McCOWAN CSR#10147

8:30 am SC087400 Plaintiff MOE KESHAVARZ I {Xl
Counsel ROBERG MUSSIG (X)
NIVIE SAMAAN
VS Defendant ZACHARY D. SCHORR (X)
JOSEPH ZERNIK (x) (:olln",1 JENNA MOLDAWSKY (X)

INPROPRIA PERSONA
CCP 170.6 - JUDGE NEIDORF
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:

ordered to give notice of these rulings.

The Court finds that plaintiff has met her summary
judgment burden by proving each element of her claim
for specific performance, entitling her to judgment
on that cause of action. Defendant has failed to
respond with specific facts, supported by properly
authenticated evidence, demonstrating a triable
issue of material fact exists as to plaintiff's
cause of action or an affirmative defense.
A purchaser who fulfills all obli$ations, except for
timely depositing the purchase pr~ce in escrow, will
not be denied specific performance if that failure
is attributable to the seller's substantial
noncompliance with his escrow obligations. (Ninety
Nine Investments Ltd. v. Overseas Courier Service
[Singapore) Private, Ltd. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th
1113, 1134;Galdjie v. Darwish (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th
1331, 1343.
The declarations of Gail Hershowitz, Victor Parks,
and Maria McLaurin support the contention that Ms.
Samaan was not provided with a fully executed
purchase agreement, the "Residential Purchase
Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions" in
particular, until SOIDe time after 3:42 p.m. on
October 22, 2004. These declarations are, in turn,
supported by the fax from Ms. Hershowitz at Mara
Escrow dated October 22, 2004 at 3:42 p.m. (Moving
MINUTES ENTERED
Page 2 of 8 DEPT. WEI 08/09/07
COUNTY CLERK

300 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p300/679

 From: Edward A. Hoffman 310-575~6107 To: Joseph Zernik Date: 8/21/2007 Time: 2:05:34 PM Page 4 of9

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DATE: 08/09/07 DEPT. WEI

HONORABLE JACQUELINE A. CONNOR JUDGE V. JAIME DEPUTY CLERK

HONORABLE JUDGE PRO TEM ELECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR

S. McWRIGHT CA Deputy Sheriff T. Mc COWAN CSR#10147 Reporter

8:30 am SC087400 PI';n!;ff MOE KESHAVARZI (xl

Counsel ROBERG MUSSIG (X)
NIVIE SAMAAN
VS Defendant ZACHARY D. SCHORR (X)
JOSEPH ZERNIK (X) Cnun,,1 JENNA MOLDAWSKY (Xl
INPROPRIA PERSONA
jccp 170.6 - JUDGE NElDORF

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:

Papers, Exhibit 24) and the fax from Victor Parks to

Countrywide on October 25, 2004 (Opposition, Exhibit
U). Ms. Hershowitz states that, at the time of her
fax at 3:42 p.m. on October 22, 2004, Mr. zernik had
continued to fail to provide Mara Escrow with a
fully executed copy of the purchase agreement. Ms.
McLaurin states that, by October 25, 2004, all loan
approval conditions had been met by Ms. Samaan
except for the provision of a fully executed
purchase agreement. Based on this evidence, the
Court finds that Mr. Zernik's noncompliance caused
the delay by Ms. Samaan in removing the appraisal
contingency.
As'of October 25, 2004, Ms. Samaan had fulfilled all
obli~ations, except for removal of the appraisal
contlngency. The appraisal contingency could not be
removed until Ms. Samaan received loan approval.
Approval of the loan was delayed because Countrywide
had not received a fUlly executed copy of the
purchase agreement. Despite multiple requests by
Victor Parks and/or Ms. Samaan to Mara Escrow to
provide the executed purchase agreement, it was not
provided until the late afternoon or evening of
October 22, 2004 because Mr. Zernik had not signed
or initialed the "Residential Purchase Agreement and
Joint Esc::;ow Instructions" until then. Ms. Samaan's
failure to remove the appraisal contingency until
5:18 p.m. on October 25, 2004 was solely
attributable to Mr. Zernik's noncompliance and,
MINUTES ENTERED
page 3 of 8 DEPT. WEI 08/09/07
COUNTY CLERK

301 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p301/679

 From: Edward A. Hoffi'nan 310-575-6107 To: Joseph Zernik Date: 8/21/2007 Time: 2:05:34 PM Page 50f9

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DATE: 08/09/07 DEPT. WEI

HONORABLE JACQUELINE A. CONNOR JUDGE V. JAIME DEPUTY CLERK

HONORABLE JUDGE PRO TEM ELECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR

S. McWRIGHT CA DepulJI Sheriff T. McCO\\'AN CSR#10147 RepOrter

8:30 am SC087400 Plaintiff ~10E KESHAVARZI (X)

Counsel ROBERG MUSSIG (X)
NIVIE SAMAAN
VS Defendanl ZACHARY D. SCHORR (Xl
JOSEPH ZERNIK (X) Counsel MOLDAWSKY
JEJ;.1NA (X)

INPROPRIA PERSONA
CCP 170.6 - JUDGE NEIDORF
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:

therefore, she is entitled under the law to specific

performance. Repeated contentions by Mr. Zernik that
his si$nature on the second counter-offer was
suffic1ent to complete the purchase agreement is
simply not supported by any authority or expert
declaration, but in fact is directly contradicted by
the declarations of Mr. Parks and Ms. McLaurin.
Additionally, Ms. Samaan faxed her final contingency
removal to Michael Libow at 5:18 p.m. on October 25,
2004. Mr. Zernik's cancellation instructions were
not faxed to Ms. Samaan by Mara Escrow until 5:23
p.m. on October 25, 2004. Mr. Zernik's contention
that he canceled the deal by fax on October 21,
2004, is not supported by the undisputed record of
events. In his initial fax, Mr. Zernik simply stated
that he would be requesting that his realtor, Mr.
Libow, prepare cancellation instructions. This fax
was followed by ongoing conversations between the
parties regarding documents. This fax reflected, at
most, a statement of future action, which did not
occur until October 25, 2004. Nothing in Mr.
Zernik's fax indicated that he was canceling escrow
immediately or as of that or any date.
Finally, Mr. Zernik's fraudulent inducement claim,
based on an allegedly fraudulent loan
prequalification letter by Victor Parks dated
September 7, 2004, is no more than a red herring.
Mr. Zernik did not cancel escrow based on any
MINUTES ENTERED
Page 4 of 8 DEPT. WEI 08/09/07
COUNTY CLERK

302 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p302/679

 From: Edward A. Hoffinan 310-575-6107 To: Joseph Zernik Date: 8/21/2007 Time: 2:05:34 PM Page 6of9

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DATE: 08/09/07 DEPT. WEI

HONORABLE JACQUELINE A. CONNOR JUDGE V. JAIME DEPUTY CLERK

HONORABLE JUDGE PRO TEM ELECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR

S. McWRIGHT CA Deputy Sheriff T. McCOWAN CSR#10147 Reporter

8:30 am SC087400 Plaintiff MOE KESHAVARZI (Xl

Cou.nsel ROBERG MUSSIG (xl
NIVIE SA.r.tAAN
VS Defendant ZACF.1lRY D. SCHORR (Xl
JOSEPH ZERNIK (Xl Counsel JENNA MOLDAWSKY (Xl

INPROPRIA PERSONA
CCP 170.6 - JUDGE NEIDORF
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:

question regarding Ms. Samaan's prequalification in

September 2004. As set forth above, Ms. Samaan had
obtained loan approval on October 25, 2004 and final
approval on October 29, 2004, before the escrow
closing date of November 1, 2004. Ms. Samaan has
also provided uncontroverted evidence establishing
her current ability to purchase the property.
(Canino Declaration.)
While there were dubious actions on both sides, it
lis ultimately clear that Mr. Zernik's o~n actions
caused the delay in loan approval and resulting
delay in Ms. Samaan's ability to remove the
appraisal contingency, the concededly sole basis for
Mr. Zernik's cancellation of escrow. The evidence
shows that Ms. Samaan was ready, willing and able to
complete the purchase by the November 1, 2004
closing date and is presently ready, willing and
able as well. Therefore, the motion for summary
judgment must be GRANTED.
With respect to Mr zernik's motion to amend, Mr.
Zernik has not complied with CRC Rule 327(a).
Further, while leave to amend a complaint is usually
liberally granted, the application for leave to
amend is to be made as soon as the need to amend is
discovered. If the party seeking the amendment has
been dilatory and the delay has prejudiced the
opposing party, the Court has the discretion to deny
leave to amend. A long, unwarranted and unexcused
MINUTES ENTERED
Page 5 of 8 DEPT. WEI 08/09/07
COUNTY CLERK

303 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p303/679

 From: Edward A. Hoffi'nan 310-575-6107 To: Joseph Zernik Date: 8/21/2007 Time: 2:05:34 PM Page 7of9

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DATE: 08/09/07 DEPT. WEI

HOr-;ORABLE JACQUELINE A. CONNOR JUDGe V. JAIME DEPUTY CLERK

HONORABLE JUDGE PRO TEM ELECTRONlC RECORDING MONITOR

S. McWRIGHT CA Deputy Sheriff T. McCOWAN CSR#10147 Reporter

8:30 am SC087400 Plaintiff MOE KESHAVARZI (X)

l.ounsel ROBERG MUSSIG (X)
NIVIE SAMAAN
VS D,r.ndarn ZACHARY D. SCHORR (X)
JOSEPH ZERNIK (X) ~umcl JENNA MOLDAWSKY (X)

INPROPRIA PERSONA
CCP 170.6 - JUDGE NEIDORF
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:

delay in presenting it is a good reason for denial.

There are no compulsory cross-complaints against
parties other than plaintiff. A defendant can cross-
complain against a co-defendant or third person not
yet a party to the action only if the cause of
action asserted: (1) arises out of the same
transaction, occurrence or series of transactions or
occurrences (set forth in the complaint); or (2)
asserts a claim, right or interest in the property
or controversy which is the subject of the action
brou$ht against him (Code of Civil Procedures
Sect~on 428.10(b).) with a good faith qualification.
Gherman v. Colburn (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d 544, 558. A
strong showing of bad faith supports a denial of the
right to file. (Foot's Transfer & Storage Co. v.
Superior Court (1980) 114 Cal.App.3d 8971, 902-903.
The Court finds that Mr. Zernik has not been
diligent in seeking leave to file a first amended
cross-complaint adding six new causes of action and
seven new cross-defendants. Mr. Zernik states that
the most important discovery bringing the new
allegations to light was gleaned from CQuntrywide.
However, the majority of that discovery was produced
in August 2006 and the rest in February 2007. This
motion was not filed until June 26, 2007.
Second, the Court finds that there is substantial
evidence to show that Mr. Zernik is not acting in
MINUTES ENTERED
Page 6 of 8 DEPT. WEI 08/09/07
COUNTY CLERK

304 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p304/679

 From: Edward A. Hoffman 310-575~6107 To: Joseph Zernik Date: 8/21/2007 Time: 2:05:34 PM Page 8of9

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DATE: 08/09/07 DEPT. WEI

HONORABLE JACQUELINE A. CONNOR JUDGE V. JAIME DEPUTY CLERK

HONORABLE JUDGE PRO TEM ELECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR

S. McWRIGHT CA Deputy Sheriff T. McCOWAN CSR#10147 Reporter

8:30 am SC087400 Plaintiff MOE KESHAVARZI (X)

Counsel ROBERG MUSSIG (X)
NIVIE SAMAAN
VS Defendant ZACHARY D. SCHORR (X)
JOSEPH ZERNIK (X) Counsel JENNA MOLDAWSKY (Xl

INPROPRIA PERSONA
CCP 170.6 - JUDGE NEIDORF
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:

good faith. Mr. Zernik filed an answer and cross-

complaint on February 6, 2006. He then stalled
discovery efforts by refusing to allow plaintiff or
others to conduct an inspection of the property at
issue and refusing to appear for deposition without
a Court order. The Court continued motions to compel
discovery to April 26, 2007 as a result of Mr.
Zernik's request for additional time to respond,
then he failed to file opposition. The Court has
also had to address the issue of appointing a
referee to conduct ongoing depositions because of Mr
Zernik's unwarranted personal attacks during
depositions. Further, on July 23, 2007, the Court
had to issue a protective order in favor of
Countrywide due to the number of improper
communications attempted by Mr. Zernik with
Countrywide officers and employees. Most recently,
Mr. Zernik contends that his own opposition papers
to plaintiff's summary judgment motion were tampered
with or altered prior to being filed with the Court,
though he has taken no position as to what he claims
was altered, and, on August 2, 2007, he filed an ex
parte a~plication before Judge John L. Segal seeking
to cont~nue the August 9th hearing date for the
summary judgment motion. This motion was properly
denied.
Based on the long and contentious history of the
litigation between Ms. Samaan and Mr. Zernik, the
request to file a first amended cross-complaint less
MINUTES ENTERED
Page 7 of 8 DEPT. WEI 08/09/07
COUNTY CLERK

305 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p305/679

 From: Edward A. Hoffman 310-575-6107 To: Joseph Zernik Date: 8/21/2007 Time: 2:05:34 PM Page 90f9

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF lOS ANGELES

DATE: 08/09/07 DEPT. WEI

HONORABLE JACQUELINE A. CONNOR JUDGE V. JAINE DEPUTY CLERK

HONORABLE JUDGE PRO TEM ELECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR

S. McWRIGHT CA Deputy Sberiff T. McCOWAN CSR#10147 Reporter

8:30 am SC087400 Plaintiff MOE KESHAVARZI (Xl

Counsel ROBERG MUSSIG (Xl
NIVIE SAJI1Al\N
VS DefemJ.n' ZACHARY D. SCHORR (Xl
JOSEPH ZERNIK (X) Counsel JENNA MOLDAWSKY (Xl
INPROPRIA PERSONA
CCP 170.6 - JUDGE NEIDORF
NATURE OF PROCE.EDINGS:
than 30 days before trial, opening up an entirely
new field of inquiry with multiple new parties, is
found to be a tactical, strategic maneuver to
further delay this action and the specific
performance sought by plaintiff. The motion is
DENIED.
Order Granting Summary JUdgment in favor of Plaintiff
Nivie Samaan is signed and filed this date and a
conformed copy given to Plaintiff and Defendant in
open court.
Judgment by Court pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedures Section 437c is signed and filed this
date and a conformed copy is given to Plaintiff and
Defendant in open Court.
The Court notes the only remaining parties are, the
Cross-Complaint as to Coldwell Banker Residential
Brokerage and Michael Libow.
Accordingly, Final Status Conference set for August
30, 2007 is to remain.
Counsel for Plaintiff to give notice of the Court's
rulings.

MINUTES ENTERED
page 8 of 8 DEPT. WEI 08/09/07
COONTY CLERK

306 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p306/679