With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". cases that are directly on point, this Court must attempt to predict how the California Supreme Court would rule were it faced with the facts at issue here. See Amfac Mortgage Corp. v. Arizona Mall of Tempe, Inc., 583 F.2d 426, 434 (9th Cir.1978). 10 . At oral argument, Plaintiffs cited a number of cases in support of their assertion that the limitation of liability provisions in the Agreements are not enforceable. The Court has carefully reviewed these cases, as well as the cases cited by SBVS in its supplemental brief. In particular, the Court has reviewed two lines of cases. First, the Court has reviewed the cases addressing "no damages for delay” provisions in construction contracts. See, e.g., Hawley v. Orange County Flood Control Dist., 211 Cal.App.2d 708, 27 Cal.Rptr. 478 (1963) (<HOLDING>); State Highway Admin. v. Greiner Eng’g

A: holding that one minute delay between the initial stop of the defendant and the officers question regarding whether the defendant had any illegal substances and his request to search the defendants car was sufficiently contemporaneous with the issuance of the citation such that there was no appreciable delay and certainly no unreasonable delay
B: holding that whether clause in construction contract providing that no damages would be available for delay was enforceable was a factual question where there was evidence that damages resulted from unreasonable delay beyond the contemplation of the parties
C: holding that a 13 month delay was unreasonable
D: holding that a five month delay was unreasonable
B.