Judge Cherol J. Nellon, Case MOTIONS 2023-04-06 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: MOTIONS, Date: 2023-04-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: MOTIONS Hearing Date: April 6, 2023 Dept: 28

Defendants Bre Launch Holdco, LLC and Lari, Aspen LLC’s Motion to Enforce Settlement

Having considered the moving, opposing and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On May 12, 2020, Plaintiff Kristopher Rahendra (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Bre Launch Holdco, LLC (“BLH”) and Lari, Aspen LLC (“Lari”) for general negligence and premises liability.

On July 28, 2020, Defendants filed an answer.

On February 17, 2023, Defendants filed a Motion to Enforce Settlement to be heard on April 6, 2023. On March 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On March 29, 2023, Defendants filed a reply.

There is no currently scheduled trial date.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Defendants request the Court enforce the settlement agreement and award attorneys’ fees totaling $2,085.00.

Plaintiff requests the Court deny the motion.

LEGAL STANDARD

“If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside 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.” CCP § 664.6.

Courts are empowered to enter judgments pursuant to oral settlements made before the court or written settlements signed by the parties. (Elyaoudayan v. Hoffman (2003) 104 Cal.App.4th 1421, 1428; CCP § 664.6; Weil & Brown, Civ. Pro. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2011) ¶12:952.) In deciding motions made under Section 664.6, judges “must determine whether the parties entered into a valid and binding settlement.” Kohn v. Jaymar-Ruby (1994) 23 Cal. App. 4th 1530, 1533. In deciding whether to enforce a settlement, courts have the power to decide disputed facts, and to interpret the agreement. Fiore v. Alvord (1985) 182 Cal.App.3d 561, 566; Weil & Brown, Civ. Pro. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2011) ¶¶12:977 – 12:978.5. Judges may receive evidence, determine disputed facts including the terms the parties previously agreed upon, and enter the terms of a settlement agreement as a judgment, but may not newly create material terms. (Osumi v. Sutton (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1355, 1360.) Judges also cannot address ambiguities in material terms by filling in the gaps, or adjudicate differences between the parties, as distinguished from just settling or interpreting the settlement provisions. (Terry v. Conlan (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1445, 1460.)

DISCUSSION

Parties entered into a settlement agreement on December 22, 2022. As part of the agreement, Plaintiff agreed to vacate and surrender possession of the subject property to Defendants on or before February 2, 2023. A portion of the settlement payment was kept in an escrow account to be released to Plaintiff upon written confirmation that Plaintiff had surrendered the property by that date; Plaintiff consented to incurring a charge of $500.00 per day for each day after the deadline. As of the time of filing this motion, Plaintiff remained in possession of the subject property.

Plaintiff claims that the settlement agreement violates the moratorium on evictions in Los Angeles. Section 4.2 notes that “Plaintiff agrees to voluntarily vacate and surrender possession of the Subject Property to Defendants on or before February 2, 2023.” Plaintiff cites to Los Angeles County’s COVID-19 Tenant Protections Resolution, which prevents landlords from evicting tenants on the basis of failure to pay rent due to COVID-19 related hardships.

The moratorium is completely irrelevant to the enforcement of this settlement. Plaintiff is not being evicted due to failure to pay rent due to COVID-19; Plaintiff willingly entered into a binding settlement agreement to voluntarily vacate the subject property and has failed to abide by the terms of the contract. The subject agreement is not based on any sort of rent payment. Plaintiff does not even make an argument that any payment was impacted by COVID-19. Plaintiff offered no other defense to enforcement. The Court grants the motion, finding the settlement enforceable.

Defendants request $2,085.00 in attorney’s fees based on 7.5 hours of attorney’s work, at a rate of $210.00 per hour, $450.00 in court reporter fees, and 1 $60.00 filling fee. Given that this stems from a failure to perform the settlement and it appears that Plaintiff agreed to the settlement without intent to abide by the terms of the agreement, attorney’s fees are appropriate pursuant to CCP § 128.6(a). However, the Court will not award sanctions based on court reporter’s fees. The Court instead awards $1,110.00, based on 5 hours at a reasonable rate of $210.00 per hour, and 1 $60.00 filling fee.

CONCLUSION

Defendants Bre Launch Holdco, LLC and Lari, Aspen LLC’s Motion to Enforce Settlement is GRANTED.

Defendants Bre Launch Holdco, LLC and Lari, Aspen LLC’s Request for Attorney’s Fees is GRANTED. Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel are ordered to pay Defendants $1,110.00 in attorney’s fees within 30 days of the hearing on the motion.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Moving Party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.