Judge: Andrew E. Cooper, Case: 22CHCV00334, Date: 2025-04-25 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: 22CHCV00334    Hearing Date: April 25, 2025    Dept: F51

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F-51

MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT

Motion Filed: 12/5/24

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Queen of Angels Traditional Roman Catholic Church (“Plaintiff”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Main Realty Group, LLC (“Defendant”)

NOTICE: OK

RELIEF REQUESTED: Judgment against Defendant in the principal amount of $57,500.00, plus attorney’s fees in the amount of $2,500.00.

TENTATIVE RULING: The unopposed motion is granted. Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment against Defendant in the amount of $60,000.00.

BACKGROUND

This is a contract action. On 5/13/22, Plaintiff filed its complaint, alleging against Defendant the following causes of action: (1) Specific Performance; and (2) Breach of Contract. On 7/8/22, Defendant filed its answer. On 10/2/24, the parties entered into a stipulated settlement agreement wherein, inter alia, Plaintiff agreed to settle this matter for the total sum of $40,000.00, to be paid via monthly installment of $2,500.00. (Decl. of Mark F. Miller ¶ 3, citing Ex. 1 to Miller Decl., ¶ 7.)

Under the explicit terms of the agreement, “If Defendant defaults by (a) failing to timely deliver any one or more of the Settlement Sum installment payments in good funds by the due dates set forth herein, then Defendant shall be in default and Plaintiff shall be entitled to have the following judgment promptly entered against the Defendant (‘Judgment’) in the Action: (a) Money judgment for restitution of losses in the sum of $60,000, less the amount of payments received by Plaintiff prior to the date Judgment is entered, plus (b) An award for recovery of costs and attorneys’ fees in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in the sum of $2,500.00 for costs and attorneys’ fees related to the enforcement of this Settlement and Stipulation; (c) Said money judgment and award of costs and fees shall earn interests at the legal rate of 10% per annum until paid in full. (Ex. 1 to Miller Decl. ¶ 9.)

On 10/2/24, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Conditional Settlement and request for dismissal of the entire action without prejudice, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. Plaintiff asserts that “to date, only the initial payment due on 10/10/24 (albeit belatedly paid) has been made by Defendant.” (Pl.’s Mot. 4:25–26.) On 12/5/24, Plaintiff filed the instant motion enforce the settlement agreement. No opposition has been filed to date.

ANALYSIS

“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.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 664.6, subd. (a).)

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 into 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 10/2/24 stipulated settlement agreement entered into between the parties. (Ex. 1 to Miller Decl.) 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 ¶ 13.) The Court’s Section 664.6 jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement is also stated in the 10/2/24 Notice of Conditional Settlement.

Based on the foregoing, the Court grants Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to enforce the terms of the 10/2/24 settlement agreement entered into between the parties.

CONCLUSION

The unopposed motion is granted. Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment against Defendant in the amount of $60,000.00.