Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 22STCV05986, Date: 2023-11-08 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 40 - JUDGE ANNE RICHARDSON - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
The Court issues tentative rulings on certain motions.The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) email Dept 40 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (smcdept40@lacourt.org) with a copy to the other party(ies) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no email is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. 

Case Number: 22STCV05986    Hearing Date: November 8, 2023    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

Background

Plaintiff Mario Sanchez sued Defendants Peter Chhoeu Enterprises, Inc. and Does 1 through 25 to a February 17, 2022 Complaint alleging claims of (1) Failure to Provide Rest Periods – Labor Code §§ 226.7, 512, (2) Failure to Provide Meal Periods – Labor Code §§ 226.7, 512, and (3) Unfair Competition – Business and Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq.

On July 21, 2022, the parties participated in a mandatory settlement conference, at which time the action was settled.

Counsel for Plaintiff Sanchez drafted a settlement agreement and release, which was executed by Defendant Peter Chhoeu Enterprises, Inc.’s President, Peter Chhoeu, on July 28, 2022, and by Plaintiff on August 3, 2022. The agreement’s terms partly involve Peter Chhoeu Enterprises, Inc.’s obligation to pay Plaintiff Sanchez $26,000 by August 15, 2022, the Court’s retention of jurisdiction to enforce the settlement, a term relating to default, and a term allowing the recovery of attorney’s fees and costs incurred in enforcing the settlement agreement.

On October 12, 2022, Plaintiff filed a notice of settlement of the entire case.

That same day, Plaintiff filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement and for an award of attorney fees of $7,855.40. The motion was set for hearing on May 3, 2023.

Also on that day, the Court set an Order to Show Cause (OSC) re Dismissal (Settlement) for July 14, 2023. The notice also advanced and vacated all hearings on calendar.

On February 2, 2023, the Court noticed a reassignment of the action to the new judicial officer in Department 40.

On February 28, 2023, Plaintiff Sanchez gave notice of reassignment.

On July 12, 2023, Plaintiff Sanchez again filed a nearly identical motion to enforce the settlement agreement and for an award of attorney’s fees of $7,855.40, with the only notable difference being a change of counsel for Plaintiff.

On July 14, 2023, the Court held the OSC re Dismissal (Settlement), which only Plaintiff’s counsel attended. Plaintiff’s counsel represented that the settlement had not been fully executed and, at the request of Plaintiff’s counsel, the Court continued the hearing on the motion to enforce settlement to November 8, 2023.

Plaintiff Sanchez’s motion is now before the Court.

Motion to Enforce Settlement

Legal Standard

“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).)

“Because of its summary nature, strict compliance with the requirements of [Code of Civil Procedure] section 664.6 is prerequisite to invoking the power of the court to impose a settlement agreement.” (J.B.B. Inv. Partners, Ltd. v. Fair (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 974, 984, as modified Dec. 30, 2014.) “Thus, the statute requires the signatures of the parties seeking to enforce the agreement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 and against whom the agreement is sought to be enforced.” (Ibid., internal quotations and brackets omitted; Kohn v. Jaymar-Ruby (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1530, 1533 [“In deciding motions made under Section 664.6, judges “must determine whether the parties entered into a valid and binding settlement”].)

The trial court may enter judgment pursuant to a stipulated agreement to settle in one of two ways: (1) in a writing signed by the parties; or (2) by oral agreement made “before the court.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6, subd. (a); Murphy v. Padilla (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 707, 711-712.) A party moving for entry of judgment under section 664.6 need not establish a breach of the settlement agreement; rather, 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.)

Disputes regarding the parties’ “compliance with the settlement agreement may be relevant to the enforcement of the judgment, once entered ….” (Machado v. Myers (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 779, 796.) “Section 664.6 was enacted to provide a summary procedure for specifically enforcing a settlement contract without the need for a new lawsuit.” (Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 809.)

If the settlement leaves material terms wanting, or confusing, the settlement cannot be enforced through section 664.6 summary proceeding and must be addressed in a separate civil action. (Compare Terry v. Conlan (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1445 [finding parties never agreed to the means that were material to the settlement, including what role an independent manager was to play regarding management of a trust property, and whether the trust should be qualified as a QTIP, thereby indicating that there was no meeting of the minds as to the material terms], with Osumi v. Sutton (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1355 [holding trial court’s decision to extend closing date for vendor’s agreement to repurchase house did not create a material term and was within court’s power because the closing date had passed by the time the motions came on for hearing and a new closing date was necessary to grant the relief sought by both parties].)

Order Entering/Enforcing Settlement: GRANTED.

Here, Plaintiff provides evidence of a settlement agreement executed by the parties between July 28, 2022 and August 3, 2022. The agreement provides that this Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement. The agreement also requires a $26,000 payment to Plaintiff by August 15, 2022, in exchange for which Plaintiff would dismiss this case. The agreement contains a term relating to how Defendant Peter Chhoeu Enterprises, Inc. may remedy any default under the settlement agreement. (7/12/23 Mot., p. 9; 7/12/23 Mot., Hedwat Decl., Ex. A, Settlement Agreement, §§ 1, 3, 7.)

The Court determines that a writing constituting a settlement agreement signed by the parties is now before the Court. (7/12/23 Mot., Hedwat Decl., Ex. A.) The parties’ entry into the settlement agreement is supported by Plaintiff’s October 12, 2022 notice of settlement of entire case. (See 10/12/22 Notice.) The Court is thus empowered to enter judgment based on the parties’ settlement agreement. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 664.6, subd. (a).)

Plaintiff also shows that, as of the time this motion was filed on July 12, 2023, Defendant Peter Chhoeu Enterprises, Inc. had failed to pay $26,000 to Plaintiff, monies which were due on August 15, 2022 per the terms of the settlement agreement. (7/12/23 Mot., Hedwat Decl., ¶¶ 6-7, Ex. A, § 1.) Plaintiff thus brought this motion, seeking not only entry of judgment pursuant to the settlement agreement terms, but also an award of attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $7,855.40, i.e., fees to enforce the settlement by reaching out to defense counsel. (7/12/23 Mot., Hedwat Decl., ¶ 13, Ex. B [communication with defense counsel].) The fees and costs are comprised of 8.25 hours preparing this motion at a rate of $725 per hour, 2.5 hours expected to be expended preparing for and attending the hearing, and a motion filing fee of $61.65. (7/12/23 Mot., Hedwat Decl., ¶¶ 8-12.)

The Court finds that these fees are awardable and reasonable. The prevailing party is entitled to recover costs as a matter of right. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032, subds. (a)(4), (b).) Attorney’s fees are also recoverable as costs when authorized by contract, statute, or law. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (a)(10).) Attorney’s fees and costs may be awarded where a contract between the parties at issue specifically provides for such fees and costs and one party prevails over the other on the contract. (See Civ. Code, § 1717, subd. (a).) The fees are determined based on the lodestar inquiry of reasonable fee rates, reasonable fee hours, multiplier enhancements, and reasonable costs. (PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095 [lodestar method]; Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1132 [multiplier factors].)

Here, there is an agreement for attorney’s fees and costs built into the parties’ settlement agreement, which the Court may enforce pursuant to the terms of that agreement. (7/12/23 Mot., Hedwat Decl., Ex. A, §§ 7, 18.) The Court determines that the fee rate of $725 per hour is within the reasonable range for a 14-year practitioner like Raphael Hedwat. (7/12/23 Hedwat Decl., ¶ 8.) The Court also determines that the 10.75 hours sought by Plaintiff are reasonable based on efforts attempting to enforce the settlement agreement since August 2022. (See, e.g., 7/12/23 Mot., Hedwat Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. B.) No multiplier award is requested. Costs are reasonable in the amount of $61.65, i.e., cost of filing this motion and to set hearing. (7/12/23 Mot., Journal Technologies Court Portal Printout [$61.65 payment].)

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion. 

Conclusion

Plaintiff Mario Sanchez’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and for Award of Attorney Fees of $7,855.40 is GRANTED.

Plaintiff is to file a proposed judgment to the Court within seven calendar days of this hearing. The proposed judgment must include all terms and conditions in the settlement agreement. (See Machado v. Myers, supra, 39 Cal.App.5th at pp. 792-793.) The proposed order must also set out the contractual and factual bases for the recovery of attorney’s fees and costs.