Judge: Andrew E. Cooper, Case: 21CHCV00714, Date: 2023-11-28 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F51, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2251.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 21CHCV00714    Hearing Date: November 28, 2023    Dept: F51

MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT

Motion Filed: 10/23/23

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Capital One Bank (USA) N.A. (“Plaintiff”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Hrayr Garibyan (“Defendant”)

NOTICE: OK

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order and entry of judgment enforcing the terms of a settlement agreement between the parties dated 9/2/22.

TENTATIVE RULING: The unopposed motion is granted. Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment against Defendant in the amount of $52,597.45.

Plaintiff is reminded to review the 5/3/19 First Amended General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil. When e-filing documents, parties must comply with the “TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS” which are set forth at page 4, line 4 through page 5, line 12 of the Court’s 5/3/19 First Amended General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil (particularly bookmarking declarations and exhibits). (CRC 3.1110(f)(4).) Failure to comply with these requirements in the future may result in papers being rejected, matters being placed off calendar, matters being continued so documents can be resubmitted in compliance with these requirements, documents not being considered and/or the imposition of sanctions.

BACKGROUND

This is a collections action. On 9/16/21, Plaintiff filed its complaint, alleging a sole of action for Common Counts against Defendant. On 9/2/22, the parties entered into a conditional stipulated settlement agreement wherein, inter alia, Defendant was to pay to Plaintiff a total sum of $55,235.45 in exchange for the dismissal of the instant action without prejudice. (Decl. of Laura M. D’Anna, ¶¶ 7–8.)

Under the explicit terms of the agreement, Defendant agreed to pay Plaintiff an initial payment of $300.00, followed by $300.00 in monthly installments from 10/15/22, followed by a final payment in the amount of $52,070.45 due 9/15/23. (Id. at ¶ 7.) “In the event DEFENDANT fails to make any payment by its respective due date, and upon Declaration or formal noticed motion where required by PLAINTIFF or Plaintiff’s Attorney regarding said default, the Court shall set aside the dismissal without prejudice, resume jurisdiction over the matter, and enter a Judgment in favor of PLAINTIFF and against DEFENDANT as agreed in Paragraph 1 of this Stipulated Settlement Agreement, less any amount Defendant has paid on the stipulated settlement balance.” (Ex. 1 to D’Anna Decl. ¶ 8.)

On 11/15/22, Plaintiff filed the agreement with the Court, and the action was dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant has paid $3,300.00 under the agreement but has since failed to make any additional payments as required. (D’Anna Decl. ¶ 9.) On 10/23/23, Plaintiff filed the instant motion enforce the settlement agreement. No opposition has been filed to date.

ANALYSIS

In determining a motion to enforce a settlement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, the court seeks to determine whether the parties entered a valid and binding settlement of all or part of the case. (In re Marriage of Assemi (1994) 7 Cal.4th 896, 905.) A party moving for entry of judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 need not establish a breach of the settlement agreement; the court is authorized to enter judgment pursuant to the settlement regardless of whether the settlement's obligations were performed, breached or excused. (Hines v. Lukes (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1184–1185.)

Here, Plaintiff has attached to the instant motion a copy of the 9/2/22 conditional stipulated settlement agreement entered between the parties. (Ex. 1 to D’Anna Decl.) A copy of the agreement was also filed with the Court on 11/15/22. As the motion is unopposed, the Court finds no dispute as to the validity and enforceability of the agreement. Moreover, the agreement explicitly provides that the Court may enforce its terms pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. (Id. at ¶ 8.) The Court’s Section 664.6 jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement is also stated in the 11/15/22 order dismissing the action without prejudice.

Based on the foregoing, the Court grants Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to enforce the terms of the 9/2/22 settlement agreement entered between the parties.

CONCLUSION

The unopposed motion is granted. Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment against Defendant in the amount of $52,597.45.