Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: KC069267, Date: 2025-02-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: KC069267    Hearing Date: February 18, 2025    Dept: O

Tentative Ruling

Defendant’s Motion to Enforce Settlement is GRANTED.

Background

On April 26, 2017, Plaintiff Lilian Hoats filed suit against Defendant Maria Felix Briceno alleging that Defendant failed to pay her attorney’s fees and costs per the parties’ April 25, 2016 agreement and the balance due was $135,485.97.

On May 23, 2022, the court issued the following minute order: Off the record, settlement discussions commence. The matter settles in its entirety. According to the order signed by the court, judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiff in the amount of $157,405.97.

On August 28, 2023, the court denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Judgment (CCP 473 & Extrinsic Fraud).

On November 27, 2024, Defendant filed the instant motion.

On January 29, 2025, Plaintiff filed her opposition.

To date, no reply has been received.  

Legal Standard

Defendant brings forth the motion pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 664.6 which provides, in pertinent part, “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.” 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.) The settlement must include the signatures of the parties seeking to enforce the agreement, and against whom enforcement is sought. (J.B.B. Investment Partners, Ltd. v. Fair (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 974, 985.)

Discussion

As set forth in the motion, the stipulated judgment provided that Plaintiff would release her registration of one property in Rosarito, Mexico as the three undeveloped lots in Rosarito, Mexico would be transferred to Plaintiff. (According to the stipulated judgment, Plaintiff was to “withdraw all lis pendens in US and Mexico.”) However, the three properties in Rosarito were under the name of Defendant’s former husband such that transfer of the properties was not possible. Now, the problem has been fixed. Plaintiff, however, fails to release her hold on the other Rosarito property.

Here, the court’s review of the stipulated judgment provides that the court retains jurisdiction to enforce the agreement pursuant to CCP section 664.6 (paragraph 6) and that all parties signed the judgment. (Motion, p. 11 of 17 of PDF.)

To the extent that Plaintiff has filed an opposition, her concern that Defendant does not own the properties is moot.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the court GRANTS the motion.