Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 23STCV14817, Date: 2025-03-21 Tentative Ruling

Please notify Department 52 via email at smcdept52@lacourt.org and indicate that the parties are submitting on the tentative ruling. Please provide the attorney's name and represented party. Please notify the opposing side via email if submitting on the Court's tentative ruling.

Case Number: 23STCV14817    Hearing Date: March 21, 2025    Dept: 52

Plaintiff Oleh Rudoi’s Motion to Enforce Settlement

Plaintiff Oleh Rudoi moves under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 to enforce the settlement agreement between himself and defendant Kia America, Inc.  Specifically, plaintiff moves the court to order defendant to schedule surrender of the subject vehicle within 10 days and to pay the settlement funds within 5 days of the vehicle surrender.

Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, subdivision (a) provides, “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 the parties to the settlement agreement or their counsel stipulate in writing or orally before the court, the court may dismiss the case as to the settling parties without prejudice and retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement.”

On October 21, 2024, the parties stipulated orally before the court for settlement of the case.  The court therefore dismissed the action and retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of settlement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.  But no judgment has been entered.  Plaintiff has not moved to do so.  Enforcing the settlement before entering judgment pursuant to it would be premature.  (See Machado v. Myers (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 779, 795-796 & fn. 13.)

Even if plaintiff had moved to enter judgment, the court could not do so.  “In any judgment, or execution upon such judgment, the amount shall be computed and stated in dollars and cents, rejecting fractions.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 577.5.)  “It is the general rule that a judgment must be sufficiently certain to permit enforcement.  While some uncertainties may be eliminated or resolved by reference to the pleadings, [citation], that will not save a judgment for money which fails to specify the amount.”  (Imperial Casualty & Indemnity Co. v. Sogomonian (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 169, 185.)

The terms of the parties’ settlement are stated in plaintiff’s second Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offer to compromise, which defendant accepted in September 2024.  (Chang Decl., ¶¶ 5-8, Ex. 2.)  Neither the offer nor the parties’ papers specify the amount defendant agreed to pay plaintiff.  The offer states defendant would make restitution to plaintiff “in the amount of the down payment and monthly payments paid by Plaintiff for purchase of the” subject vehicle, “as well as any collateral charges and incidental costs in accordance with California Civil Code § 1793.2(d)(2)(B), less a reasonable mileage offset in accordance with California Civil Code § 1793.2(d)(2)(C), and will pay off the outstanding loan obligation due to KIA AMERICA, INC.’s Financial Services on the purchase agreement, minus late payment penalties, if any, which will be the responsibility of Plaintiff to pay.”  (Chang Decl., Ex. 2, ¶ 1.)  The court does not have the information necessary to determine the amount defendant agreed to pay.

The offer also provides that defendant agreed either to pay plaintiff $23,000 in attorney fees or, at defendant’s election, an amount to be determined by the court on plaintiff’s motion for fees.  (Chang Decl., Ex. 2, ¶ 3.)  It is not clear which option defendant chose or whether defendant has made that choice yet. 

The parties have thus not given the court sufficient information to identify the amount of any judgment that should be entered.  The court cannot enter a judgment that requires defendant to pay an unspecified amount of money.

Plaintiff Oleh Rudoi’s motion to enforce settlement is denied.