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.