Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 22STCV12440, Date: 2024-05-07 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV12440 Hearing Date: May 7, 2024 Dept: 31
Tentative Ruling
Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 31
HEARING DATE: May 7, 2024 TRIAL DATE: June 2,
2025
CASE: NBZ Investments, LLC, et al. v. Calculated Risk Analytics, LLC, et
al.
CASE NO.: 22STCV12440
MOTION
FOR THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF STANLEY MOSK COURTHOUSE TO REVIEW DE NOVO AND
CONSIDER WHETHER TO RELATE THIS MATTER WITH LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT CASE
NUMBER 24STCV02510 (Basmajian v. Castle Mortgage Corporation) PURSUANT TO
CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT 3.300(h)(1)(D)
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs
NBZ Investments, LLC, et al.
RESPONDING PARTY: No opposition
I. BACKGROUND
This is a contractual fraud case. On January 31, 2024, Plaintiffs, NBZ
Investments, LLC, and Neda and Behzad Zaman, filed a Notice of Related Case
identifying Gabriel Basmajian v. Castle Mortgage Corporation, et al.,
LASC Case No. 24STCV02510.
On February 13, 2024, the court issued a Minute Order
finding this case, 22STCV12440, and 24STCV02510, were not related within the
meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a).
On March 7, 2024, Plaintiffs filed this motion for an order
relating this action with 24STCV02510. Pursuant to California Rules of Court,
rule 3.300(h)(1)(D).
The motion is unopposed.
II. DISCUSSION
& LEGAL STANDARD
Plaintiffs submitted
a Notice of Related Case on January 31, 2024. On February 13, 2024, this Court, Department 31,
ruled that the present case, 22STCV12440, and 24STCV02510, were not related. (Minute Order, 2/13/24.) [1]
Plaintiffs now move to relate the actions pursuant to
California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(h)(1)(D), which provides: “¿In the event
that any of the cases listed in the notice are not ordered related under [Cal.
Rules of Court, Rule 3.300(h)(1)](A), (B), or (C), any party in any of the
cases listed in the notice may file a motion to have the cases related. The motion must be filed with the
presiding judge or the judge designated by the presiding judge . . . .”
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.300(h)(1)(D) (emphasis added).)[2]
The motion is not properly before this court. Based on Rule 3.300(h)(1)(D), the motion must
be filed with the presiding judge or the judge designated by the presiding
judge. The caption of Plaintiffs’ motion acknowledges as much.
Accordingly, the motion is placed off calendar. Plaintiffs are directed to file this motion
with the presiding judge or the judge designated by the presiding judge. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule
3.300(h)(1)(D).)
III. CONCLUSION
The motion is placed off calendar. Plaintiffs are directed to file the motion
with the presiding judge or the judge designated by the presiding judge. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule
3.300(h)(1)(D).)
¿
Moving party to give notice.
Dated: May 7, 2024
|
|
|
|
|
Kerry Bensinger Judge of the Superior Court |
[1]
The court’s
denial was predicated on the fact the two cases involve different loans,
different plaintiffs, different reasons for denial of the loans, and the operative
events took place at different times.
[2]
The designated judge is the supervising judge of civil in Department One.