Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case Number: 19STCV06017, Date: 2025-04-09 Tentative Ruling

All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter.  If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SMCDEPT71@lacourt.org. Do not click on the email address, either copy and paste it or type it into your email. Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject line. In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.

            Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the argument.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line.

            If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect. If the moving party fails to appear and/or submit to the Court’s tentative ruling, the Court will take the matter off calendar.

            Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the court.

If you submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.

Plaintiff Delia M. Ibarra, Trustee of the Ibarra Family Trust’s unopposed motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release, executed May 18, 2023, with Defendants Alejandro Trinidad and Elsa Yanira Castillo is granted, with this Court retaining jurisdiction pursuant to C.C.P. §664.6.

The Court orders Defendants execute the final agreed upon Grant of Permanent Easement so Plaintiff within fifteen days of this ruling. The Court grants Plaintiff an extension of time of at least two (2) months to relocate the front portion of metal and wood fence pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release.

Plaintiff Delia M. Ibarra, Trustee of the Ibarra Family Trust (“Ibarra”) (“Plaintiff”) moves unopposed for an order enforcing the settlement agreement between Plaintiff and Defendants Alejandro Trinidad and Elsa Yanira Castillo (collectively, “Trinidad”) (collectively, “Defendants”) that was entered into on May 18, 2023. (Notice of Motion, pg. 2.)

On February 21, 2019, Plaintiff filed her complaint against Defendants alleging six causes of action: (1) quiet title (adverse possession); (2) prescriptive easement; (3) breach of quiet enjoyment; (4) private nuisance (Civ. Code §1714); (5) negligence; and (6) negligent infliction of emotional distress.

On or about May 1, 2019, Defendants filed a Cross-Complaint alleging six causes of action: (1) willful trespass; (2) negligent trespass; (3) declaratory relief (C.C.P. §1060); (4) quiet title; (5) private nuisance; and (6) negligence.

On or about July 26, 2021, the parties filed a Stipulated Settlement wherein Plaintiff agreed to purchase a lot line adjustment/easement through which she would receive from Defendants the disputed parcel of land to maintain at her sole cost and discretion in exchange for payment to Defendants in the total sum of $45,000. (Decl. of Avakian ¶6.)

After retaining new counsel, on July 8, 2022, the parties filed a stipulation with the Court to set aside the Stipulated Settlement and to re-open the case, and that any and all discovery (including expert discovery) and law and motion deadlines be reset consistent with a new trial date. The stipulation included a provision permitting the parties to file amended pleadings. The stipulation was adopted by the court on or about July 11, 2022. (Decl. of Avakian ¶7.)

On November 3, 2022, Plaintiff filed a verified Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) against Defendants alleging five causes of action: (1) nuisance; (2) negligent infliction of emotional distress; (3) negligence; (4) equitable easement; and (5) quiet title based on the Agreed Boundary Doctrine.

On January 11, 2023, Defendants filed a verified First Amended Cross-Complaint (“FAXC”) against Plaintiff alleging six causes of action.

On January 12, 2023, Defendants filed a verified Answer to the TAC. On March 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed a verified Answer to the FAXC and demand for jury trial.

On May 18, 2023, the parties participated in a mediation with Hon. Jaime R. Corral (Ret.) The parties reached a settlement and a detailed “Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release” (“SAMR”) was executed by all parties and their respective counsel of record. (Decl. of Avakian ¶11; Exh. A.)

Pursuant to the terms of the SAMR, Plaintiff agreed to pay Defendants a total of $14,000.00, including $3,000.00 for a permanent easement that will run with the land and be recorded with the Los Angeles County Clerk Recorder for the disputed parcel of land and $11,000 for their loss of use and enjoyment of the disputed parcel of land. Additionally, Plaintiff agreed to relocate a portion of the metal and wood fence that is encroaching near the front of the Trinidad Property. (Decl. of Avakian ¶12.)

According to the SAMR, counsel for Plaintiff agreed to prepare the grant of permanent easement to be recorded with the County. All monies due to Defendants are due to be paid within 30 days of the recording of the easement. Additionally, Plaintiff was to begin relocation of the metal and wood fence also within 30 days of the recording of the easement and said relocation is to be completed by December 31, 2023. (Decl. of Avakian ¶13.)

On August 4, 2023, the proposed grant of permanent easement was circulated to all counsel by Plaintiff’s counsel. After sending a follow up email on August 23, 2023, on August 24, 2023, Defendants’ counsel provided approval of the proposed easement with revisions. Said revisions were adopted by all counsel for the parties and the final easement was circulated for signature on September 25, 2023. (Decl. of Avakian ¶14, Exh. B.)

On September 29, 2023, and October 18, 2023, respectively, Plaintiff’s counsel followed up with Defendants’ counsel to impress upon him that time was of the essence because Plaintiff required sufficient time (approximately two months) to relocate the metal and wood fence per the terms of the SAMR following the recording of the easement. As of the filing of this motion, Plaintiff has not heard back from Defendants. (Decl. of Avakian ¶15, Exh. C.)

Plaintiff filed the instant motion on December 8, 2024. As of the date of this hearing no opposition has been filed.

C.C.P. §664.6 provides, as follows: “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.”

Plaintiff submitted evidence Plaintiff and Defendants entered into the SAMR, which was signed by both parties on May 18, 2023. (Decl. of Avakian ¶11, Exh. A.) Pursuant to the terms of the SAMR, Plaintiff agreed to pay Defendants a total of $14,000.00, including $3,000.00 for a permanent easement that will run with the land and be recorded with the Los Angeles County Clerk Recorder for the disputed parcel of land and $11,000 for their loss of use and enjoyment of the disputed parcel of land. Additionally, Plaintiff agreed to relocate a portion of the metal and wood fence that is encroaching near the front of the Trinidad Property. (Decl. of Avakian ¶12.) The parties agreed the SAMR would be enforceable in accordance with C.C.P. §664.6 and that the Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce it. (Decl. of Avakian ¶11, Exh. A at §2.11.) Plaintiff submitted evidence Defendants have failed to execute the final agreed upon Grant of Permanent Easement, which would allow Plaintiff to file the document with the Los Angeles County Clerk Recorder. (Decl. of Avakian ¶¶14-15, Exhs. B, C.)

Plaintiff is entitled to an order enforcing the SAMR and retains jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to C.C.P. §664.6. The Court orders Defendants execute the final agreed upon Grant of Permanent Easement within 15 days of this ruling to allow Plaintiff to file the Grant of Easement with the Los Angeles County Clerk Recorder. Further, the Court grants Plaintiff an extension of time of at least two (2) months to relocate the front portion of metal and wood fence pursuant to the terms of the SAMR.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to enforce the SAMR is granted.

The Clerk of the Court is ORDERED to sign and notarize the Grant of Easement and provide it to Ibarra for recordation.

The Court retains jurisdiction pursuant to the parties’ settlement agreement and Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court