Judge Bruce G. Iwasaki, Case Number: BC707515, Date: 2023-09-21 Tentative Ruling

This action arose from a dispute regarding real property located at 1130 Rosalind Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90023 (Property). On May 24, 2018, Plaintiffs Rudy Montalvo and Guadalupe Montalvo (Plaintiffs) filed a Complaint alleging they were the true fee simple title owners of the Property and had been dispossessed through the fraudulent actions of Defendants.

On September 19, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) against Defendants Osbaldo Martinez, OG Global Investments, Inc., Anna Marroquin, Gilbert Slazar, Jr., JCP, LP, ALJ Realty, Inc., and all persons unknown, claiming any legal or equitable right, title, estate, lien or interest in the property described in the Complaint, adverse to Plaintiffs' title. The FAC – Plaintiffs’ operative pleading – contains causes of action for (1.) fraud, (2.) financial elder abuse, (3.) conversion, (4.) common counts, (5.) declaratory relief, (6.) breach of fiduciary duty, and (7.) quiet title.

On November 7, 2018, Defendants OG Global Investments, Inc. and Osbaldo Martinez filed separate answers to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint.

On December 31, 2019, Cross-Complainants JCP, LP And AIG Realty, Inc. filed a Third Amended Cross-Complaint. Defendants OG Global Investments, Inc. and Osbaldo Martinez were named as Cross-Defendants.

On February 26, 2019, Plaintiffs Rudy Montalvo and Guadalupe Montalvo entered into a written Settlement Agreement with Defendant OG Global Investments, Inc. in the amount of $125,000.

On April 22, 2022, Cross-Complainants JCP, LP, and AJG Realty, Inc. sought entry of default against Defendants/Cross-Defendants OG Global Investments, Inc. and Osbaldo Martinez. On February 27, 2023, the Court entered Default Judgment against Cross-Defendants OG Global Investments, Inc. and Osbaldo Martinez on the Third Amended Cross-Complaint.

On July 1, 2022, Plaintiffs and Defendant Osbaldo Martinez entered into an oral settlement agreement in the amount of $50,000.

Plaintiffs now move to enforce the two settlement agreements against Defendant OG Global Investments, Inc. and Defendant Osbaldo Martinez. Plaintiffs contend that Defendants failed to make any of the required payments under their respective settlement agreements. No opposition was filed.

The Court is authorized to enter judgment pursuant to the stipulated settlement. (Code Civ. Proc. § 664.6.) In reviewing a motion to enforce a settlement, the Court determines “whether the parties entered into a valid and binding settlement.” (Hines v. Lukes (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1182.) “A settlement is enforceable under section 664.6 only if the parties agreed to all material settlement terms. [Citations.] The court ruling on the motion may consider the parties’ declarations and other evidence in deciding what terms the parties agreed to, and the court’s factual findings in this regard are reviewed under the substantial evidence standard. [Citations.] If the court determines that the parties entered into an enforceable settlement, it should grant the motion and enter a formal judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.” (Id. at pp. 1182-1183; see also Osumi v. Sutton (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1355, 1357 [“Strong public policy in favor of the settlement of civil cases gives the trial court, which approves the settlement, the power to enforce it”].)

Strict compliance with the statutory requirements is necessary before a court can enforce a settlement agreement under section 664.6. (Sully-Miller Contracting Co. v. Gledson/Cashman Construction, Inc. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 30, 37.) The party seeking to enforce a settlement “must first establish the agreement at issue was set forth ‘in a writing signed by the parties’ (§ 664.6) or was made orally before the court. [Citation.]” (Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 299, 304.)

Plaintiffs seek to enforce their settlement agreements pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.

On February 26, 2019, Plaintiffs entered into a written Settlement Agreement with Defendant OG Global Investments, Inc. in the amount of $125,000, which was to be paid on or before March 15, 2019. (McIntosh Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. 1.) The written settlement was executed by the President of Defendant OG Global Investments. (Id.)

Subsequently, on July 1, 2022, Plaintiffs and Defendant Osbaldo Martinez reached a settlement agreement in the amount of $50,000, which was to be paid on or before January 1, 2023. (McIntosh Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. 2.) The parties stipulated to this settlement agreement orally, in the presence of the Court. (Id.)

On this motion, Plaintiffs now contend Defendants breached their respective settlement agreements because no payments have been made by either Defendant on either settlement agreement. (McIntosh Decl., ¶¶ 3-4.)

The facts of this motion are straightforward; the existence and breach of the settlement agreements are not contested as there is no opposition.

Additionally, while the motion does not address whether the Court properly retained jurisdiction over these parties, retained jurisdiction under Section 664.6 is not at issue. Specifically, court records do not indicate that Defendants OG Global Investments, Inc. and Osbaldo Martinez have been dismissed with respect to Plaintiff’s FAC.[1] Thus, the Court did not lose subject matter jurisdiction over these Defendants. (See e.g., Basinger v. Rogers & Wells (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 16, 23 [“[Plaintiffs] could have filed their motion under section 664.6 ... before their dismissals were filed. Having waited to bring their motion until after their actions were dismissed, [Plaintiffs] must now contend with the policies favoring finality of judgments and termination of litigation” pursuant to section 473.]; Viejo Bancorp, Inc. v. Wood (1989) 217 Cal.App.3d 200, 206 [“Because the old action was no longer pending at the time the court sought to enter the judgment reviewed here, the court was without subject matter jurisdiction.”].)

Plaintiffs’ motion to enforce the settlement agreements complies with all the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.

The Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreements pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 is granted. Within 15 days of service of the notice of ruling, Plaintiffs shall prepare, serve and lodge a single, proposed Judgment consistent with the Court's orders herein.

[1] Plaintiffs’ written settlement agreement with Defendant OG Global Investments, Inc. provides that Plaintiffs would file a dismissal of their claims with prejudice as to Defendant OG Global Investments, Inc. “with the Court within 7 days of the payment of money.” (McIntosh Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. 1.) There is no record that any dismissal was filed, which is consistent with Plaintiffs’ position that no payments were made. Additionally, in Court’s Order After Hearing (entered on December 9, 2022), which contains the terms of Plaintiffs’ settlement agreement with Defendant Osbaldo Martinez, the parties did not provide for the dismissal of Defendant Osbaldo Martinez.

Department 58