Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case Number: 20STCV09522, Date: 2024-05-01 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Angel Lujan’s motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement, executed September 20, 2023, with Defendants PSG California LLC, David Leedom, and Beth Seara is denied.

Plaintiff Angel Lujan (“Lujan”) (“Plaintiff”) moves for an order enforcing the settlement agreement between Plaintiff and Defendants PSG California LLC (“PSG”), David Leedom (“Leedom”), and Beth Seara (“Seara”) (collectively, “Defendants”) that was entered into on September 20, 2023. (Notice of Motion Settlement, pg. 2; C.C.P. §664.6.) Plaintiff moves on the grounds that Defendants have breached the settlement agreement by failing to perform under the terms of the settlement in the following respects: by the withholding of a portion of the settlement and non-payment of $21,243.54 due per the terms of the Settlement Agreement no later than Friday, October 20, 2023. (Notice of Motion Settlement, pg. 2.)

Plaintiff’s 2/2/24 request for judicial notice of (1) the Court docket in this matter is denied, as the Court does not need to take judicial notice of filings on the instant docket.

Plaintiff’s 2/2/24 request for judicial notice of (1) the October 11, 2022, notice of motion and motion for order restraining judgment debtor David R. Denis in BC704715 Mintz v. Law Offices of David R. Denis P.C. (P-RJN, Exh. 2); and (2) the May 17, 2023, Order in BC704715 Mintz v. Law Offices of David R. Denis P.C. (P-RJN, Exh. 3), is granted.

On or about September 15, 2023, Plaintiff entered into a settlement agreement in the case of Lujan v. PSG California, LLC, et al. (“Lujan Settlement”) whereby Defendant promised to pay Plaintiff’s counsel, the Law Offices of David R. Denis, P.C. (“LODD”), an agreed upon sum of attorneys’ fees.

On or about October 17, 2023, Eric Mintz (“Mintz”) informed Defendant by letter of a judgment obtained against LODD in the case of Mintz v. Denis, et al. LASC Case No. BC704715, amounting to $16,935.90 with interest running per statute, which Defendant estimates to currently amount to $21,243.54. In addition, Mintz has obtained an assignment and restraining order from the Court ordering all attorneys’ fees payable to LODD to be paid in satisfaction of such judgment. LODD alleges it has satisfied the above-mentioned judgment which Mintz denies.

On or about October 26, 2023, Defendant requested that LODD produce an order from the Court confirming that said judgment had been satisfied. However, no such order has been produced.

On or about October 29, 2023, Mintz informed Defendant of a third-party claim of ownership filed by Euro Spec Motoring, Inc. (“Euro Spec”) in the Mintz action, claiming a right of possession to $21,243.54 of LODD’s.

On November 8, 2023, Defendant filed a complaint in interpleader against Mintz, Euro Spec, and LODD, which is currently pending in the Los Angeles County Superior Court’s limited jurisdiction department, Case No. 23STLC07184.

Plaintiff filed the instant motion on February 2, 2024. Defendants filed their opposition on February 14, 2024. Plaintiff filed his reply on February 21, 2024.

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.”

There exists an interpleader action that involves the money implicated in the instant motion; the interpleader action is the appropriate venue for the issues raised in the instant motion to be adjudicated. (See C.C.P. §386.)

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement is denied.

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court