Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 21STCV04930, Date: 2023-05-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV04930    Hearing Date: May 3, 2023    Dept: 74

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT 

DEPARTMENT 74 

MOVING PARTY:                Plaintiff Yessica Melgar

RESPONDING PARTIES:    Defendant Baronhr Hospitality, LLC

Motion to Enforce Settlement and Request for Attorney Fees

The court considered the moving papers and non-opposition.

BACKGROUND     

            This action arises from an employment dispute.

            On July 21, 2020, Plaintiff Yessica Melgar (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendant Baronhr Hospitality, LLC (Defendant) and others. In the complaint, Plaintiff alleged discrimination, harassment, retaliation, failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, declaratory judgment, wrongful termination in violations of public policy, battery, assault, sexual batter, gender violence, violations of the Ralph Civil Rights Act, violation of the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent supervision and retention.

            On May 5, 2022, the parties entered a settlement agreement in which Defendant was to pay Plaintiff $31,175.00 by May 20, 2022. Plaintiff never received payment and sent numerous follow up emails.

            On March 31, 2023, Plaintiff filed this motion to enforce the settlement and request for attorney fees.

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

            The court finds sufficient cause to enforce the settlement, especially since Defendant has filed a statement of non-opposition. But the issue of attorney fees remains. “In any action on a contract, where the contract specifically provides that attorney’s fees and costs, which are incurred to enforce that contract, shall be awarded either to one of the parties or to the prevailing party, then the party who is determined to be that party prevailing on the contract, whether he or she is the party specified in the contract or not, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees in addition to other costs.” (Civ. Code, § 1717, subd. (a).) Moreover, the settlement agreement provides, “In the event that any Party shall institute any action for proceeding against another party to enforce the provision of his Agreement, the prevailing Party shall be entitled to recover their expenses, including reasonable attorney’s fees, in addition to any other relief to which the Party is found entitled.” (Ortiz Decl., ¶ 2; Ex. 1, ¶ 6.)

            The court finds Plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rate reasonable. (Ortiz Decl., ¶ 16.) Additionally, the court finds that Plaintiff has adequately substantiated her request with an hourly breakdown of work performed on the motion. (Ortiz Decl., ¶ 21.) In light of Defendant’s non-opposition, though, the court will not award Plaintiff attorney fees for reviewing Defendant’s opposition and drafting a reply. Accordingly, the court will award Plaintiff $1,860 in attorney fees ($600 x 3 hours + $60 filing fee).

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the court grants Plaintiff’s motion to enforce the settlement and request for attorney fees.

Defendant is ordered to pay Plaintiff $31,175 pursuant to the settlement and $1,860 in attorney fees and costs.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED:  ¿May 3, 2023 

_____________________________ 

Colin Leis 

Judge of the Superior Court