Judge Ana Maria Luna, Case Number: 21STUD02661, Date: 2023-08-03 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ana Maria Luna, Case: 21STUD02661, Date: 2023-08-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STUD02661 Hearing Date: August 3, 2023 Dept: 3

Instant Motion

Defendant Silva moves this court for orders (1) enforcing the settlement agreement between the parties, (2) awarding damages to Defendant Silva, and (3) awarding attorney’s fees for having to make the motion.

Decision

The motion is GRANTED in part. Plaintiff is ORDERED to provide Defense counsel with the best copy they can generate of the accounting form, so that Defense counsel can pass it on to Mr. Salomon. The request for damages is DENIED. The request for attorney’s fees is DENIED.

Governing Statute

Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6 states in relevant part:

“(a) If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside of the presence of the court or orally before the court, for settlement of the case, or part thereof, the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement. If requested by the parties, the court may retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement.

(b) For purposes of this section, a writing is signed by a party if it is signed by any of the following:

(1) The party.

(2) An attorney who represents the party.”

Discussion

The agreement between the parties, as reflected in the stipulation signed and filed by Judge Killefer on March 25, 2022, requires Plaintiff to either (1) return a $1,000 security deposit to a non-party identified as Jose Salomon or (2) provide an accounting of that security deposit to Mr. Salomon. That obligation was to be performed within 21 days of the date Defendant vacated the property.

Defendant vacated the property on May 25, 2022. Plaintiff generated an accounting form concerning the security deposit on June 11, 2022. (Plaintiff’s Exhibits 1-2). This was within the 21-day period. However, the accounting was mailed to the address from which the Plaintiff had just moved out and where (at least according to Plaintiff’s complaint) Mr. Salomon no longer lived.

Plaintiff’s failure to mail the accounting to an address where it was likely to reach Mr. Salomon is a breach of the agreement. Defense counsel is in touch with Mr. Salomon, and in fact represents him in a related case. Therefore, the accounting may properly be delivered to him, on the expectation that he will convey it to Mr. Salomon.

However, Defendant may not pursue an action for damages under Civil Code § 1950.5 by way of a motion to enforce a settlement in an unlawful detainer case where such a claim was never at issue. In fact, she may not pursue such an action with respect to this deposit at all, because it is not her money. The deposit was posted by Mr. Salomon and it (or an accounting) is owed to Mr. Salomon.

Since this is a motion to enforce a contract, the availability of attorney’s fees depends on the provisions of the contract. The contract, as reflected in the stipulation signed and filed on March 25, 2022, does not allow for an award of attorney’s fees. In fact, it expressly provides that the parties will bear their own fees and costs.

Conclusion

Plaintiff breached the settlement agreement by failing to provide an accounting in a manner calculated to reach Mr. Salomon. However, Plaintiff is not entitled to recover damages for the security deposit, and the settlement agreement does not allow a party to recover fees for actions taken to enforce it.