Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case Number: 20STCV48250, Date: 2024-08-19 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. 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.

Defendants Howard Management Group’s, Jan T. Khoe and Kim T. Khoe, Trustees of the Khoe Family Trust Dated November 30th, 1989’s, John T. Khoe’s, and Enpo Stella Chang’s unopposed motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement is granted.

Defendants are to submit a judgment to this Court within 10 days of this ruling.

Defendants Howard Management Group (“Howard Management”), Jan T. Khoe and Kim T. Khoe, Trustees of the Khoe Family Trust Dated November 30th, 1989 (“Trust”), John T. Khoe (“Khoe”), and Enpo Stella Chang (“Chang”) (collectively, “Defendants”) move unopposed for an order enforcing the settlement agreed to between pro per Plaintiff Joan Barboza (“Barboza”) and Defendants at the August 4, 2023, Mandatory Settlement Conference. (Notice of Motion, pg. 2; C.C.P. §664.6.)

This is a residential landlord-tenant case involving an apartment in a multi-apartment building at 9400 National Blvd. in West Los Angeles. Plaintiff is the current tenant in Apartment 4 (“Subject Property”). Defendants believe Plaintiff has been a tenant since 1981. Defendants Trust, Khoe, and Chang are owners of the Subject Property and Howard Management is the manager.

Plaintiff alleged that the Subject Property had various habitability-related issues such as water intrusion, environmental contamination, and pest infestations. Defendants deny habitability issues. Plaintiff filed her Complaint on December 14, 2020. The parties engaged in expansive discovery including written discovery, depositions, an Independent Medical Examination of the Plaintiff, and a site inspection. The matter was originally set for trial on September 12, 2022.

Over the lifetime of the case, the parties participated in both private mediation on February 23, 2022, and Mandatory Settlement Conferences on June 14, 2022, and September 8, 2022. Shortly before the September 2022 trial, on August 30, 2022, the Plaintiff fired her attorney and began representing herself.

The Court then continued the trial date several times to allow the Plaintiff, now in pro per, additional time to either find new counsel or prepare for trial herself.

After several continuances, the case was set for trial on August 14, 2023. On August 4, 2023, during a Final Status Conference, the Court ordered the parties to a Mandatory Settlement Conference.

During the August 4, 2023, in person, Mandatory Settlement Conference, Judge Ruth Kwan of Department 89 assisted the parties in reaching a settlement. After several hours of voluntary negotiations, in a writing with certain material terms drafted by defense counsel and signed by Plaintiff, the parties to this action settled the dispute among them. A Minute Order dated August 4, 2023, noted that at about 2:30 pm, the parties, including Plaintiff, represented to the Court that the case had settled. (Decl. of Newell ¶2, Exh. A.)

A settlement agreement was prepared at the Courthouse and signed by Plaintiff. (Decl. of Newell ¶3, Exh. B.) Shortly after Plaintiff signed the settlement agreement, Plaintiff’s prior counsel notified defense counsel

that a Medicare lien existed on the case. (Decl. of Newell ¶4, Exh. C.) Defense counsel immediately notified Plaintiff of the Medicare lien and advised she would need to resolve the lien. (Decl. of Newell ¶5, Exh. D.) Plaintiff then began

negotiating with Medicare to resolve her lien. To assist in the lien negotiations, on August 8, 2023, defense counsel forwarded subpoenaed records from Dr. Stricke and the Independent Medical Examination Report from Dr. Jonathan Corren to Plaintiff. (Decl. of Newell ¶6, Exh. E.)

Plaintiff continued her efforts to resolve the Medicare lien, advising defense counsel in October and November 2023 that she continued to follow up with Medicare regarding the negotiations. (Decl. of Newell ¶¶7-8, Exhs. F-G.) Plaintiff’s subsequent conduct in addressing the lien demonstrates her efforts to perform under the agreement, solidifies the settlement, and demonstrates Plaintiff's belief that she entered into a valid and binding settlement at the time which resolved all claims she had against Defendants.

On February 14, 2024, Defendants filed the instant motion. As of the date of this hearing no opposition has been filed by Plaintiff.

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.” (C.C.P. §664.6(a).)

The court ruling on such a motion may consider the parties’ declarations and other evidence in deciding the agreed-to terms by the parties. (In re Marriage of Assemi (1994) 7 Cal.4th 896, 905, 911.) If the court determines that the parties entered into an enforceable settlement, it should grant the motion and enter a formal judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement. (Corkland v. Boscoe (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 989, 995.)

In addition to finding an enforceable agreement signed by the parties, a court analyzing a C.C.P. § 664.6 motion must also determine whether the parties mutually consented to the material terms of the settlement. (See, e.g., Gauss v. GAF Corp. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1110.) The test for mutual consent is objective rather than subjective, “being what the outward manifestations of consent would lead a reasonable person to believe. (Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 811, internal quotations omitted.)

Defendants submitted evidence that Plaintiff and Defendants executed a Settlement Agreement that is signed by the parties and contains a provision authorizing this Court to retain jurisdiction under C.C.P. §664.6. (Decl. of Newell ¶3, Exh. B.) Accordingly, Defendants submitted evidence of the existence of a valid settlement agreement and are therefore entitled to an order enforcing the settlement.

The Parties agreed on a settlement amount of one-hundred and ninety-five thousand dollars ($195,000.00). (Decl. of Newell ¶3, Exh. B at ¶3.1.) The terms of the agreement specifically noted State Farm, on behalf of Defendants, would pay thirty-four thousand dollars ($34,000.00) to Plaintiff’s prior counsel to resolve the Attorney Fee Lien. (Decl. of Newell ¶3, Exh. B at ¶¶3.2, 3.3.) The net sum to Plaintiff would be one-hundred and sixty-one thousand dollars ($161,000.00), less any medical liens. (Decl. of Newell ¶3, Exh. B at ¶¶3.4, 3.6, 3.7.) The terms specifically indicated that Plaintiff would be responsible for the satisfaction of any liens arising from the lawsuit, including medical liens. (Decl. of Newell ¶3, Exh. B at ¶¶3.6, 3.7)

Plaintiff specifically agreed that Defendants would have no obligation regarding any liens associated with the Lawsuit. (Decl. of Newell ¶3, Exh. B at ¶3.6.) In exchange, the Plaintiff agreed to release and discharge her claims against Defendants related to her tenancy at the subject property through the date of the signed settlement agreement. (Decl. of Newell ¶3, Exh. B at ¶¶4, 5.) Following receipt of the net sum of the settlement amount from State Farm, Plaintiff would dismiss the lawsuit against Defendants. (Decl. of Newell ¶3, Exh. B at ¶3.5.)

The parties mutually consented to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Here, after the August 4, 2023, Mandatory Settlement Agreement, Plaintiff contacted her prior attorney to negotiate a resolution of his Attorneys’ Fee Lien. (Decl. of Newell ¶4.) This occurred in the hallway of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse outside of Department 89. (Decl. of Newell ¶4.) Defense counsel called Plaintiff’s prior counsel and noted the agreement between Plaintiff and her prior attorney to resolve the lien. (See Decl. of Newell ¶4.) The parties then indicated the amount of the settlement of the lien in the amount of $34,000, which was included in the settlement agreement. (See Decl. of Newell ¶4.) This resulted in a net amount to Plaintiff of $161,000.

In the months following signing the settlement agreement, Plaintiff also attempted to negotiate her Medicare lien. (Decl. of Newell ¶8.) Defense counsel regularly checked in with Plaintiff asking for updates regarding the status of the negotiation and offering to provide Plaintiff with documents, such as medical records and the Independent Medical Examination report from Dr. Jonathan Corren for Plaintiff to provide to Medicare to assist in decreasing the amount that Medicare demanded to resolve the lien. (See Decl. of Newell ¶¶6-7, Exhs. D-E.)

Plaintiff confirmed with defense counsel in October and November 2023 that she continued her efforts to resolve the Medicare lien. (Decl. of Newell ¶¶7-8; Exhs. F-G.)

Defendants’ unopposed motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement is granted.

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court