Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 20STCV17269, Date: 2023-05-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV17269    Hearing Date: September 6, 2023    Dept: 74

Rogelio Ramirez v. Inspired Dining Group, Inc., et al.

Motion to Enforce Settlement.

The court considered the moving papers, opposition, reply, and supplemental briefing.

TENTATIVE RULING

            The court denies Plaintiff’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement because Defendants did not waive Plaintiff’s material breach of the agreement.

BACKGROUND

            This action arises from an employment dispute.

            On May 6, 2020, Plaintiff Rogelio Ramirez (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendants Inspired Dining Group, Inc. and Randy Doten (Defendants). In the complaint, Plaintiff alleged the following causes of action: failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to provide meal periods, wage statement violations, failure to pay due wages at termination, violations of the Labor Code, and violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq.

            On December 30, 2021, the parties executed a settlement agreement, under which Defendants were to pay Plaintiff the Settlement Amount in five checks of $10,000 each. To date, Plaintiff has not received the last three checks.

            On August 5, 2022, Plaintiff filed this motion to enforce the settlement.

            On May 11, 2023, the court ordered the parties to further meet and confer and submit supplemental briefing.          

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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6.)

DISCUSSION

            Defendants contend the court should not enforce the settlement agreement because Plaintiff breached the agreement’s confidentiality provision by filing in the court’s public docket a pleading containing an unredacted version of the agreement on January 18, 2022. In response, Plaintiff contends Defendants waived the breach because Defendants made two payments to Plaintiff after the breach and, according to Plaintiff, Defendants knew, or should have known, about the breach because Plaintiff had served the pleading containing the unredacted agreement on Defendants’ counsel in January 2022. (Patel Decl., ¶ 5; Ex. 2.) Plaintiff does not, however, cite authority supporting his “should have known” standard, and the weight of evidence shows Defendants did not learn about the breach until Plaintiff filed his motion to enforce the settlement. (Lee Decl., ¶ 3.) Moreover, paragraph 11 of the settlement agreement states: “The terms or provisions of this Agreement may not be changed, waived, modified, or varied in any manner whatsoever unless in writing duly signed by all Parties.” (Bibiyan Decl., ¶ 3; Ex. 1, p. 8.) As Defendants note, Plaintiff has provided no such writing waiving the settlement agreement’s confidentiality. The court therefore denies Plaintiff’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement.

            The settlement agreement allows the prevailing party to recover attorney’s fees incurred in a motion to enforce the settlement agreement. (Bibiyan Decl., ¶ 3; Ex. 1, p. 7.) Defendants’ counsel’s proposed hourly rate and time expended are reasonable ($2,550 = $300 x (6.5 hours (reviewing motion, conducting legal research, drafting opposition) + 2 hours (reviewing reply and attending hearing)). (Lee Decl., ¶ 4.)

CONCLUSION 

The court denies Plaintiff’s motion to enforce the settlement and request for attorney’s fees and costs.

Plaintiff is ordered to pay $2,550 in attorney’s fees to Defendants by October 6, 2023.

Defendants are ordered to give notice.