NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3. SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-3184-20 LALJI BHIMJI SANGHANI and PREMWATI LALJI SANGHANI, Plaintiff-Appellants, v. RAJESHKUMAR M. PATEL, PARUL R. PATEL, MUKTA DEVELOPER, LLC, VARSANG REALTY, LLC, DIVYA GURU LLC, ALEX REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ALEX 1997 LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ALEX PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ALEX PENHORM LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ALEX SWAMIBAPA REAL ESTATE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, TAYLOR BOEHEM LLC, TAYLOR BOEHEM 2 LLC, ALEX PATEL, and ROHITH PASULA, Defendants-Respondents. ______________________________ Argued June 8, 2022 – Decided August 5, 2022 Before Judges Hoffman, Whipple, and Susswein. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hudson County, Docket No. L-4558-20. Brian M. Block argued the cause for appellants (Mandelbaum Barrett, PC, and Snellings Law, LLC, attorneys; Robert C. Scrivo, Brian M. Block, Robert S. Snellings, and Christopher B. de Blank, of counsel and on the briefs). Peter M. Slocum argued the cause for respondents Rajeshkumar M. Patel, Parul R. Patel, Mukta Developer LLC, Varsang Realty LLC, Divya Guru LLC, Alex Real Estate Holdings LLC, Alex 1997 LLC, Alex Property Management LLC, Alex Penhorn LLC, Alex Swamibapa Real Estate LLC, and Alex Patel (Lowenstein Sandler, LLP, attorneys; Christopher S. Porrino and Peter Slocum, of counsel and on the briefs). PER CURIAM Between June 2005 and February 2009, plaintiffs, Lalji and Premwati Sanghani, made fourteen separate loans to defendant, Rajeshkumar Patel (Rajeshkumar),1 totaling $3,485,000. The interest-bearing loans were used to fund a series of real estate ventures. Rajeshkumar defaulted on every loan, 1 Because father-and-daughter plaintiffs share the same surname, we use their first names when necessary to distinguish between them. Moreover, because three of the defendants share the same surname, Patel, we use Rajeshkumar Patel's first name throughout the opinion. We mean no disrespect in doing so. A-3184-20 2 eventually prompting plaintiffs to file suit. Plaintiffs appeal three May 26, 2021 Law Division orders entered by Judge Kimberly Espinales-Maloney dismissing their complaints with prejudice and discharging all lis pendens filed in connection with this litigation. The trial judge concluded that the first two loans, which were not reduced to writing, were unenforceable under the statute of frauds. Judge Espinales-Maloney also determined that the complaint regarding all fourteen loans was time-barred under the six-year statute of limitations. After carefully reviewing the record in light of the applicable legal principles and arguments of the parties, we affirm the dismissal of plaintiffs' complaint substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Espinales-Maloney's comprehensive twenty-page written opinion. I. A. We discern the following pertinent facts from plaintiffs' complaint, accepting them as true for purposes of our review of the trial court orders dismissing that complaint. Plaintiffs and Rajeshkumar were members of the A-3184-20 3 same …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals