Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 19STCV09548, Date: 2025-01-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV09548    Hearing Date: January 7, 2025    Dept: 76

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants advised Plaintiff and her mother to represent that the underlying loan was a commercial mortgage, even though it was a consumer credit transaction, which rendered the Truth in Lending Act inapplicable to the loan. Defendants allegedly knew Plaintiff did not qualify and could not afford the loan, which was for 11 months of interest only payments with a final balloon payment of $705,250.

Defendant UMRO Realty Corp., dba The Agency moves to enforce the settlement agreement between Plaintiff Robyn Pearlman and the Settling Defendants Alex Nelson and 1^st Point Lending to extend to Defendant April Lopez and UMRO Realty, Inc.

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant UMRO Realty Corp., dba The Agency’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement, which is a disguised Civ. Proc. Code, § 1008 motion, is DENIED.

ANALYSIS

Motion To Enforce Settlement

Defendant UMRO Realty Corp., dba The Agency moves pursuant to CCP § 664.6 to enforce the settlement agreement between Plaintiff Robyn Pearlman and the Settling Defendants Alex Nelson and 1^st Point Lending to extend to non-signatories to the settlement agreement, Defendant April Lopez and UMRO Realty, Inc.

Defendant previously brought this motion, which the Court previously denied in its October 20, 2022 order. As such, the instant motion is a motion for reconsideration of that order or, alternatively, a renewed motion. Under Civ. Proc. Code, § 1008(a) & (b), Defendant was required to set forth new or different facts, circumstances, or law. Although Defendant does not acknowledge § 1008, arguably Defendant has identified new or different facts by virtue of the Court’s determination that Lopez was acting as a mortgage originator with regard to Plaintiff and also “that payment [from 1st Point Defendants] was remuneration for Lopez’s placing and assisting in the completion of the loan.” (Statement of Decision, dated 5/24/24, Page 13:9-14:10.)

However, the Court no longer has power to reconsider its prior ruling denying the motion to enforce the settlement because judgment was entered on July 9, 2024. Indeed, Defendant did not even file the instant motion until September 25, 2024.

 Moreover, the court was correct that, once it had entered judgment, it had no authority to rule on his motion.  “ ‘A court may reconsider its order granting or denying a motion and may even reconsider or alter its judgment so long as judgment has not yet been entered. Once judgment has been entered, however, the court may not reconsider it and loses its unrestricted power to change the judgment. …’ [Citation.]” (APRI Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 176, 181 [90 Cal. Rptr. 2d 171].) Finally, Husband cites no authority for the proposition that this court must reverse the judgment and order the trial court to rule on his motion before again entering judgment. It is Husband's burden, as appellant, to show reversible error. (Virtanen v. O'Connell, supra, 140 Cal.App.4th at p. 710.) He has not done so. 

(G.R. v. Intelligator (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 606, 622.)

As such, the motion to enforce settlement, which is a disguised Civ. Proc. Code, § 1008 motion, is DENIED.