Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 21STCV16302, Date: 2024-07-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV16302    Hearing Date: July 29, 2024    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On April 30, 2021, Plaintiff Ariel Tolentino filed this action for unpaid wages against Defendants Rubber Ducky Productions, Inc., Jack Hanasab, and Does 1 through 100.

            The parties entered into a settlement agreement in February 2024, which required Defendants to pay $100,000 in installments of $10,000. The first payment was due 30 days from the execution of the agreement and Defendants’ receipt of Plaintiff’s W-9 form. Defendants made the first two payments but failed to make subsequent payments.

            On June 28, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to enforce settlement, requesting judgment in the outstanding amount of $80,000 plus attorney’s fees.    

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

            The settlement agreement was executed on March 26, 2024. (Florence Decl., Ex. 1.) Defendants agreed to pay $100,000 in ten equal installments of $10,000. (Ibid.) The first payment was due within 30 days, the second within 60 days, and the third within 90 days. (Ibid.) Defendants only made two payments, with the first being late. (Id., ¶ 3.) The third payment was not received by the due date of June 24, 2024. (Ibid.) To date, Defendants have made no payments other than the first two. (Id., ¶ 5.)

            The agreement provides that “[t]he court shall retain jurisdiction of the matter pursuant to Section 664.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure” and “the terms of this Agreement may be enforced or interpreted pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.” (Florence Decl., Ex. 1.) It further provides that “[t]he prevailing party in an action to enforce this Agreement or for breach of this Agreement or challenging the enforceability of this Agreement shall be entitled to their costs and attorneys’ fees.” (Ibid.)

            The Court finds that Defendants have breached the settlement agreement and that Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorney’s fees for prevailing on this motion. However, the 8.5 hours claimed and $900 hourly rate are excessive in comparison to the complexity of the motion. (See Florence Decl. ¶¶ 7-8.) The reasonable hourly rate is $450, and the reasonable number of hours is 4 hours. Plaintiff incurred a $60 filing fee. (Ibid.) Therefore, the Court awards $1,860.

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s motion to enforce settlement is GRANTED. Judgment shall be entered in favor of Plaintiff against Defendants in the amount of $80,000. The Court additionally awards Plaintiff attorney’s fees in the amount of $1,860.