Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 20STUD01999, Date: 2022-11-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STUD01999    Hearing Date: November 7, 2022    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            This is an unlawful detainer action between Plaintiff 900 South Figueroa Street Apartments Investors LLC and Defendants Aram Abgaryan and Lauren Taxter. The lease was entered into between Plaintiff and Defendant Abgaryan in July 2019. The action stems from unpaid rent for the month of January 2020. Currently, Defendant Taxter is the only tenant in possession, as Abgaryan has been incarcerated for murder. Plaintiff has subsequently dismissed Abgaryan since he is not in possession. Plaintiff and Defendant Taxter entered into a stipulation on September 9, 2021.

            The stipulation provided that: (1) Defendant is to pay a total of $84,374.88; (2) Defendant would pay $21,093.72 by September 14, 2021; and (3) Defendant would pay the remaining balance in monthly installments of $5,273.43 beginning November 22, 2021. The agreement required both parties to fully cooperate in applying for COVID rent relief through HousingIsKey.com (“HIK”). The agreement states that if Defendant is awarded relief money through HIK, that amount would be credited towards the total amount due. If Defendant is not awarded any money by November 22, 2021, the stipulation requires Defendant to commence payment according to the set schedule.

            It is undisputed that Defendant did not make the first payment of $5,273.43 by November 22, 2021. The stipulation provided that in the event of default by Defendant, judgment will be entered for Plaintiff in the amount of $84,374.88, and Plaintiff will be awarded possession of the premises. Plaintiff thereafter moved to enforce the settlement agreement.

            On January 24, 2022, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion because Plaintiff potentially failed to cooperate with Defendant’s application for COVID rent relief, thereby precluding Defendant from making the requisite payments. The Court ordered Defendant to make the installment payments to a client trust fund or escrow account pending resolution of the rent relief issue. On September 20, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to enforce settlement on the grounds that Defendant has failed to make the requisite payments to the escrow account. The hearing on the motion was continued to November 7, 2022, and Plaintiff filed an amended motion seeking the same relief on October 10, 2022.

LEGAL STANDARD

Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 provides:¿“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.” Such a settlement agreement is a contract, and the legal principles which apply to contracts generally apply to settlement contracts.¿(Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal. App. 4th 793, 815.) When ruling on a Section 664.6 motion, the trial court acts as a trier of fact to determine whether a settlement has occurred, which is also an implicit authorization for the trial court to interpret the terms and conditions to settlement. (Skulnick v. Roberts Express, Inc. (1992) 2 Cal. App. 4th 884, 889.)

DISCUSSION

In the January 24 order, the Court had held that “Plaintiff cannot enforce payment against Defendant if Plaintiff prevented or hindered Defendant’s ability to obtain the necessary funds. The burden is on Plaintiff to demonstrate that it properly completed its HIK application in a timely fashion and did not otherwise hinder Defendant’s ability to obtain HIK money.” (January 24, 2022 Order re Mtn. to Enforce Settlement 3:12-25.) Plaintiff presently requests the same relief without any indication that it has complied with the specified obligations. It appears that discovery on the HIK application issue is ongoing. Furthermore, Defendant has complied with the order to make payments into a trust account. (See Taxter Decl. ¶ 2; Khedry Decl. ¶¶ 6-7, Ex. 3.)  

CONCLUSION

            The Motion to Enforce Settlement is DENIED.