Ari Investment Cases

LAW & MOTION CALENDAR TENTATIVE RULINGS

August 20, 2026

Judge Melissa R. McCormick Dept. CX105

Department CX105 hears law and motion on Thursdays at 2:00 p.m.

Court reporters: Official court reporters typically are not provided in this department for any proceedings. If the parties desire the services of a court reporter, the parties should follow the procedures set forth on the court’s website at www.occourts.org.

Tentative rulings: The court endeavors to post tentative rulings on the court’s website by 9:00 a.m. the day of the hearing. Tentative rulings may not be posted in every case. Please do not call the department for tentative rulings if tentative rulings have not been posted.

Submitting on tentative rulings: If all parties intend to submit on the tentative ruling and do not desire oral argument, please advise the courtroom clerk or courtroom attendant by calling (657) 622- 5305. Please do not call the department unless all parties submit on the tentative ruling. If all parties submit on the tentative ruling and so advise the court, the tentative ruling will become the court’s final ruling, and the prevailing party shall give notice of the ruling.

Appearances and public access: Appearances, whether in person or remote, must comply with Civil Procedure Code section 367.75, California Rule of Court 3.672, Orange County Superior Court Local Rule 375, and Orange County Superior Court Appearance Procedure and Information—Civil Unlimited and Complex (pub. 9/9/22).

Unless the court orders otherwise, remote appearances will be conducted via Zoom. All counsel and selfrepresented parties appearing via Zoom must check in through the court’s civil remote appearance website before the hearing begins. Check-in instructions are available on the court’s website.

The public may attend hearings by coming to court or via remote access as described above.

Photographing, filming, recording and/or broadcasting court proceedings are prohibited unless authorized pursuant to California Rule of Court 1.150 or Orange County Superior Court Local Rule 180.

Non-appearances: If nobody appears for the hearing and the court has not been notified that all parties submit on the tentative ruling, the court shall determine whether the matter is taken off calendar or the tentative ruling becomes the final ruling. The court also might make a different order. See Lewis v. Fletcher Jones Motor Cars, Inc. (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 436, 442 n.1.

NO. CASE NAME MATTER

1 Ari Investment Cases Plaintiff Lorelei Lamm’s Motion for Reconsideration

JCCP 4811 Plaintiff Lorelei Lamm moves pursuant to Civil Procedure Code section 1008(a) for reconsideration of the court’s September 6, 2024 order (ROA 2212) denying her motion for summary adjudication against defendants Chicago Title Company and Chicago Title Insurance Company (together, the “CTC Defendants”), and granting the CTC Defendants’ motion for summary adjudication. For the following reasons, Lamm’s motion for reconsideration is denied.

Section 1008(a) states:

“When an application for an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or in part, or granted, or granted conditionally, or on terms, any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, make application to the same judge or court that made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order. The party making the application shall state by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown.”

Civ. Proc. Code § 1008(a).

As an initial matter, Lamm’s motion is not accompanied by an affidavit stating what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown. The Catanzarite Declaration filed in support of Lamm’s motion instead sets forth a legal argument based on cases decided before September 6, 2024, and contests the CTC Defendants’ arguments. ROA 2215. For this reason alone, the motion for reconsideration is denied. Lamm argues on reply that even if her motion does not comply with section 1008(a)’s requirements, the court may “reconsider its own rulings under CCP § 1008.”

Reply (ROA 2276) at 4:10-11. Section 1008(c) states that “[i]f a court at any time determines that there has been a change of law that warrants it to reconsider a prior order it entered, it may do so on its own motion and enter a different order.” Civ. Proc. Code § 1008(c). The court does not find there has been a change of law that warrants it to reconsider the September 6, 2024 order.

Lamm has also not demonstrated any new or different facts, circumstances, or law warranting reconsideration. Lamm asserts 57 class members invested in five properties that did not involve Lamm, those class members are not similarly situated to Lamm, and therefore the court should not have granted the CTC Defendants’ summary adjudication as to those 57 class members. This argument is not a new or different fact, circumstance or law warranting reconsideration of the September 6, 2024 order. It an attempt by Lamm to evade her position at class certification, which Lamm also attempted to do in opposition to the CTC Defendants’ summary adjudication motion. The court addressed this in the September 6, 2024 order. The September 6, 2024 order states:

“By order dated October 5, 2023 (ROA 1962), the court granted Lamm’s motion for class certification. The court certified the following class:

‘All persons who through use of an escrow with CTC Defendants acquired Tenant-In-Common Interests in one or more of the six Properties promoted by ARGUS Defendants identified in the fifth amended complaint where ARI Realty Broker received a real estate commission, estimated to be from October 16, 2002 through March 27, 2007. The six properties are the Potomac Mills Property, the 2

Powers Ferry Property, the Copley Business Center Property, the Atrium Property, the Meridian Plaza Property, and the Rancho Conejo Property.’

“In her class certification motion Lamm argued, inter alia, there were no individual issues present, common issues predominated, Lamm’s claims were typical of the class, and a class action would be a superior means of resolving the dispute. E.g., Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Class Certification (ROA 1906) at 7:12-13 (“[t]here are no individual issues present”). Based on the evidence and arguments presented with the class certification motion, the court granted Lamm’s motion for class certification.

See 10/5/23 Order (ROA 1962) at 5 (“Plaintiff Lamm’s claims are typical of the putative class. She invested in one of the six properties (the Atrium Property) [and] is a member of the putative class . . . .”); id. at 6 (“Plaintiff has sufficiently demonstrated that classwide resolution of the claims has substantial benefits over individual actions. . . . [P]laintiff’s primary liability theory is capable of common resolution.”). Despite her prior arguments that “[t]here are no individual issues present,” common issues predominate, and her claims are typical of the class, Lamm now argues the CTC Defendants’ motion should be denied because the motion only addresses the Atrium Property in which Lamm invested, different facts allegedly apply to the five properties in which Lamm did not invest, and the CTC Defendants’ motion thus would not dispose of an entire cause of action.

Opp. (ROA 2126) at 25. Lamm’s new argument that different facts allegedly apply to the five properties in which she did not invest (see, e.g., Opp. (ROA 2126) at 19) is inconsistent with her prior arguments. In addition, Civil Procedure Code section 437c(f)(1) permits summary adjudication of “one or more issues of duty,” and summary adjudication may be granted if the motion completely disposes of an issue of duty. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 437c(f)(1). As discussed below, the court concludes Lamm has not shown triable issues of material fact exist regarding the duties she alleges the CTC Defendants owed her.”

9/6/24 Order (ROA 2212) at 3.

Lamm’s alternative requests for orders directing notice to 57 class members “and the opportunity to become individual Plaintiffs in this action,” and “add[ing] individual Plaintiffs to the Fifth Amended Complaint’s Loan Claims,” are denied. Brief (ROA 2215) at 13:24- 25, 14:7-8. Lamm has not cited any persuasive basis for such orders pursuant to section 1008(a) or other law nor has she complied with any of the requirements for seeking leave to amend a pleading.

The CTC Defendants to give notice.

Status Conference

The court has reviewed the parties’ joint status conference statements filed April 16, 2026 (ROA 2295) and August 12, 2026 (ROA 2301).

3