Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 22STCV26337, Date: 2024-01-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV26337    Hearing Date: January 29, 2024    Dept: 74

Anthony Tai Khuc Tran, et al. v. Michael Minh Thai Khuc Tran, et al.

Motion to Enforce Settlement.

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

BACKGROUND

            This action arises from a dispute over real property.

            On August 15, 2022, Plaintiffs Anthony Tai Khuc Tran (Individually and as Co-Trustee of the Tran Living Trust) and Huong Thi Thu Le (Plaintiffs) filed a complaint against Defendant Michael Minh Thai Khuc Tran (Individually and as Co-Trustee of the Tran Living Trust) (Defendant).

            On July 1, 2023, the parties entered into a settlement agreement and stipulated order requiring them to cooperate and sell the subject property.

            On July 17, 2023, the court entered the stipulated order and reserved jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement.

            On January 2, 2024, Defendant filed this motion to enforce the settlement agreement.

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

            Defendant asks this court to enforce the settlement agreement which Defendant contends Plaintiffs have breached. Under the settlement, the court entered a stipulated order (July 17 Order), which required in part that, “[t]he parties […] cooperate to sell the California Property to a bona-fide third party as quickly and profitably as possible, at a reasonable sale price considering the market, the property, and the realtor’s recommendations.” (Ashrafi Decl., ¶¶ 4-6; Ex. 2.) According to Defendant, Plaintiffs breached the settlement because they refused to accept the recommendations of the parties’ realtor. In addition, according to Defendant, Plaintiffs declined offers at fair market value or above the listing price to which the parties had agreed in their Residential Listing Agreement. But Defendant has not offered admissible evidence in support of his contentions. Instead, Defendant’s motion is replete with references by Defendant’s counsel to purported evidence attesting to events of which counsel lays no foundation for personal knowledge or relies upon hearsay. For example, counsel has not properly authenticated the Residential Listing Agreement. (Ashrafi Decl., ¶ 14; Ex. 6; Claudio v. Regents of the University of California (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 224, 244 [attorney declaration that document was a ‘true and correct copy’ is not proper authentication].))  And as evidence of the realtor’s opinion of the subject property’s value, Defendant relies on hearsay statements in emails rather than a declaration. (Ashrafi Decl., ¶¶ 10, 14, 16, 25; Ex. 4; Ex. 5; Ex. 7; Ex. 16.) Thus, the court denies Defendant’s motion without prejudice.

CONCLUSION 

The court denies Defendant’s motion to enforce the settlement without prejudice.

Defendant shall give notice.