Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 23STCV10064, Date: 2024-09-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV10064    Hearing Date: September 23, 2024    Dept: 14

#3

Case Background

This is an action for breach of contract, common counts, damages under Civ. Code, section 1719, foreclosure of mechanics liens, and enforcement of claim on contractor’s license bond. Plaintiff alleges that in March 2019, Plaintiff and the contractor Defendants entered into a credit agreement. Plaintiff supplied materials on credit to the contractor Defendants’ business. The contractor Defendants failed to pay for the materials. The contractor Defendants obtained the materials in dispute for a construction project on property owned by the Public Storage Defendants. Defendant North River Insurance Company is the insurer on the contractor Defendants’ license bond.

On May 4, 2023, Plaintiff Beacon Sales Acquisition, Inc. filed its Complaint against Edward Woodson Deaton dba Deaton Roofing Services (Deaton), Dedicated Roofing Services Incorporated (DRSI), Public Storage, Public Storage Properties XII, Inc. (PSXII), Public Storage Properties XVI, Inc. (PSXVI), and the North River Insurance Company (Surety).

Deaton and DRSI are collectively the Contractor Defendants.

On October 31, 2023, Plaintiff filed a notice of settlement.

On June 12, 2024, Plaintiff dismissed the Fifth Cause of action for enforcement of claim on the contractor’s license bond.

On June 12, 2024, Plaintiff filed motions for entry of judgment against the Contractor Defendants and to sever.

On August 28, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to vacate the notice of settlement.

Instant Pleading

Plaintiff moves to vacate a notice of settlement; sever the sixth, seventh, and eighth causes of action; and enter judgment against the Contractor Defendants according to stipulation.

Decision

Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the notice of settlement is DENIED.

Plaintiff’s motion to sever and for entry of court judgment pursuant to stipulation is DENIED.

Discussion

Plaintiff moves to vacate the notice of settlement filed on October 31, 2023.

Rule 3.1385 provides that a plaintiff must “serve and file a request for dismissal of the entire case within 45 days after the date of settlement of the case. If the plaintiff or other party required to serve and file request for dismissal within 45 days after the dismissal date does not do so, the court must dismiss the entire case 45 days after it receives notice of settlement unless good cause is shown why the case should not be dismissed.” (Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1385, subd. (b).) Good cause to restore a case to the civil active list exists when one party alleges “a dispute over whether the parties reached a binding settlement.” (Irvine v. Regents of University of California (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 994, 1001-1002.) Rule 3.1385 is merely a “case management tool” and “not intended as a means to enforce settlements.” (Id.)

Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Deaton and DRSI entered into a settlement agreement with Plaintiff and thereafter failed to abide by the terms of the agreement. (La Mendola Decl., ¶5.) There is no dispute over whether the parties reached a binding settlement. Therefore, there is no good cause to restore this case to the civil active list.

Plaintiff also moves to sever the sixth through eighth causes of action and to enter judgment on these causes of action based on a stipulation for entry of judgment between Plaintiff, Deaton, and DRSI.

Code Civ. Proc., section 1048 provides that the Court, “in furtherance of convenience, or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy, may order a separate trial of any cause of action.”

Generally, only one final judgment may be entered in an action unless an exception applies. (Leader v. Cords (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1588, 1594.) A judgment is the final determination of the rights of the parties in an action or proceeding. (Code Civ. Proc., section 577.) A judgment is final when it leaves nothing to be decided between one or more parties and their adversaries, or that can be amended to encompass all controverted issues. (Morehart v. County of Santa Barbara (1994) 7 Cal.4th 725, 741.)

Here, the Court declines to sever this action because there is no good cause to place this matter back on the civil active list. Even if the sixth through eighth causes of action were severed from the rest of the action, the first through fourth causes of action against Deaton and DRSI remain. Moreover, the Public Storage Defendants are also named in the sixth through eighth causes of action. The proposed judgment would not dispose of these causes of action against the Public Storage Defendants. Entering judgment would result in a piecemeal resolution of this action which runs afoul of the one final judgment rule.

In any case, this matter may not be placed back on the civil active list. Plaintiff is essentially attempting to enforce the breached settlement by moving for the Court to enter judgment against Deaton and DRSI. This is not an appropriate use of Rule 3.1385 because the rule was not intended as a means to enforce settlement.

Conclusion

Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the notice of settlement is DENIED.

Plaintiff’s motion to sever and for entry of court judgment pursuant to stipulation is DENIED.