Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 22STCV12440, Date: 2024-06-20 Tentative Ruling

If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling, please email
the clerk at SMCdept1@lacourt.org (and “cc” all other parties in the same
email) no later than 7:30 am on the day of the hearing, and please notify all
other parties in advance that you will not be appearing at the hearing.  Include the word "SUBMISSION" in
all caps in the subject line and include your name, contact information, the
case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you
submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing
party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motion, and the
Court may decide not to adopt the tentative ruling.

Case Number: 22STCV12440    Hearing Date: June 20, 2024    Dept: 1

22STCV12440           NBZ INVESTMENTS, LLC, et al. vs CALCULATED RISK ANALYTICS

Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion to Relate Cases

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is DENIED.  Clerk to give notice. 

Background of 22STCV12440 NBZ Investments v. Calculated Risk Analytics

On April 13, 2022, NBZ Investments, LLC, Neda Zaman, and Behzad Zaman filed this action against Calculated Risk Analytics, LLC and Castle Mortgage Corporation arising out of Plaintiffs’ attempts to secure a mortgage loan from Defendants.

On January 13, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) asserting causes of action for: (1) breach of contract; (2) fraud and deceit: inducement; (3) fraud and deceit: concealment; (4) intentional misrepresentation; (5) negligent misrepresentation; and (6) unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent business practices under Section 17200 of California’s Business and Professions Code. The TAC alleges Plaintiff NBZ Investments, which is managed and owned by Plaintiffs Neda Zaman and Behzad Zaman, owns real property located at 726 Foothill Road, Beverly Hills, CA 90210. Plaintiff NBZ Investments alleges it engaged mortgage broker Bernard E. Cohen Investments (“Bernard Cohen”) “to assist and find a lender for the refinance of a first and second note for the total principal amount of $1,400,000.00 secured by the Property.” (TAC ¶ 14.) Plaintiffs allege Defendants sent Bernard Cohen loan approval documents in October of 2021 with an asserted “locked in” rate of 3.5%. In February of 2022, Defendants sent a second approval certificate, with a rate of 3.625%. Defendants allegedly provided Plaintiffs a closing disclosure detailing the terms of the loan on February 14, 2022, but thereafter failed to fund the loan, sending a Statement of Credit Denial, Termination or Change letter dated March 1, 2022. The letter indicated Plaintiffs had “insufficient income for total obligations.” (TAC Ex. 4.) The complaint alleges Defendants breached their contract to fund the loan, concealed that the loan would only be funded if profitable to Defendants, and misrepresented that the rate was locked in.

On May 19, 2023, the court sustained Defendants’ demurrers to the sixth cause of action without leave to amend.

On November 14, 2023, the court entered Plaintiffs’ request to dismiss Defendant Calculated Risk Analytics without prejudice.

On January 31, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Related Case involving 22STCV12440 and 24STCV02510 Basmajian v. Castle Mortgage.

On February 13, 2024, Judge Kerry Bensinger issued an order providing, in relevant part, “[t]he Court finds that the following cases, 22STCV12440 and 24STCV02510, are not related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a).”

This case is currently pending in Department 31 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse with trial set for June 2, 2025.

Background of 24STCV02510 Basmajian v. Castle Mortgage

On January 31, 2024, Plaintiff Gabriel Basmajian filed 24STCV02510 against Castle Mortgage Corporation arising out Plaintiff’s attempt to secure a mortgage loan from Defendant.

The complaint alleges Plaintiff owns real property located at 10920 Hillhaven Avenue, Tujunga, CA 91042 and engaged mortgage broker Bernard E. Cohen Investments (“Bernard Cohen”) “to assist and find a lender for the refinance of a note in the principal amount of $620,000 to be secured by a first deed of trust on the Property.” (Compl. ¶ 10.) Plaintiff alleges Defendant provided approval certificates for the loan on February 4, 2022 and February 17, 2022 and provided a “Rate Lock” confirmation on February 7, 2024. Defendant allegedly provided Plaintiff a closing disclosure detailing the terms of the loan on February 23, 2022, but thereafter failed to fund the loan. In a March 1, 2022 email, Defendant stated: “[g]iven the recent turmoil in capital markets as a result of various extraordinary factors beyond the parties’ control (inflation, poor economic growth, a worldwide pandemic, the uncertainty resulting from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, etc.), it is commercially impracticable at this time for Excelerate Capital to fund and close the above-loan at 3.675%.” (Compl. Ex. 5.) The complaint alleges Defendant breached the parties’ contract by not funding the loan and concealed its intent to only fund the loan if it was profitable for Defendant.

This case is currently pending in Department 15 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse. 

Motion to Relate Cases

Standard

In the event that the pertinent judge under California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(h)(1) does not relate any of the cases set forth in a Notice of Related Case, Department 1 may relate the matters on noticed motion. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(h)(1)(D); LASC Local Rules, rule 3.3(f)(3).)

The Court Declines to Relate the Cases at Issue

As noted above, Judge Bensinger issued an order declining to relate 22STCV12440 and 24STCV02510. Accordingly, the motion is properly brought in Department 1. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(h)(1)(D), LASC Local Rule 3.3(f)(3).)  

Plaintiffs’ motion contends the cases should be related because “[t]he matters are substantially similar, Plaintiffs are represented by the same counsel Thomas J. Weiss and Shawn Zaman, the witnesses (such as Broker Bernard Cohen) are similar in each matter, the Plaintiffs may be called witnesses in support of their respective actions pursuant to Me Too evidence, the claims are similar . . . the causes of action are similar, the Defendants are the same, the acts and occurrences happened at substantially the same times, the matters require determination of identical questions of law, and the matters will be handled more efficiently under the same judge and the research attorneys/clerks who have been involved an are familiar with the matter since inception (in Department 31 of this Court).” (Mot. at 5:18-6:6.)

Cases are related when they (1) involve the same parties and are based on the same or similar claims, (2) arise from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events requiring the determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact, (3) involve claims against, title to, possession of, or damages to the same property, or (4) are likely for other reasons to require substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(a).)

The cases do not involve the same parties as the Plaintiffs are different in both actions. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(a)(1).) The cases do not arise from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events requiring the determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(a)(2).) While both cases involve attempted refinance transactions with Castle Mortgage, the transactions involve different Plaintiffs, are based upon different asserted grounds for denial, and require determinations of law and fact unique to each Plaintiff including the contracts at issue, the representations made, each Plaintiffs’ reliance thereon, and potential damages. The individual questions of law and fact predominate and the cases are not likely to involve a substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(a)(4).). Finally, the cases do not involve the same property. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(a)(3).) The Court finds the cases are not related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300.

The Court declines to relate 22STCV12440 with 24STCV02510 and the motion is DENIED.