Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 22STCV19126, Date: 2024-10-23 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: 22STCV19126    Hearing Date: October 23, 2024    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

I. Background

On August 6, 2024, Plaintiff Firefly Transportation, LLC (Firefly) and Defendant Cardinol Transportation, Inc. (Cardinol), entered into a Settlement Agreement in which Firefly agreed to pay Cardinol $50,000.00 consisting of a $17,500.00 deposit and subsequent monthly payments of $4,648.86. (Settlement Agreement)

On September 30, 2024, Cardinol filed the instant motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement.

On October 9, 2024, Firefly filed an opposition. No reply was filed.

II. Motion

A.    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).) 

B.    Analysis

Cardinol asserts that Firefly has made three installment payments to date, each of which has been less than the agreed-upon amount, resulting in a total shortfall of $842.00. (Mot., p. 4., Ex. 102) Cardinol also requests $1,600.00 in attorney fees and costs for bringing this motion. (Mot. p. 6.)

In Opposition, Firefly asserts that it pays the total amount billed on each invoice, and the ‘shortfalls’ in payment are the result of credit card fees. (Opp. ¶ 2.)

Here, the Settlement Agreement allows for “payment by cash, check or credit card.” (Settlement Agreement, ¶ 2.) The Settlement Agreement does not specify which party is responsible for covering credit card fees if payment is made by credit card. The Settlement Agreement further states: “The parties agree to be responsible for their own attorney’s fees and costs. Neither party shall receive any other damages, fees, costs, or recovery other than as stated above.” (Settlement Agreement, ¶ 5.) Therefore, the Settlement Agreement does not appear to authorize Cardinol to impose an additional 3.8% fee on Firefly on top of the agreed-upon monthly payment amount. Cardinol does not cite any legal authority that suggests otherwise.

Thus, the motion to enforce the settlement agreement is DENIED.   

III. Conclusion

Cardinol Transportation, Inc.’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement is DENIED.