Judge: Deirdre Hill, Case: YC072677, Date: 2023-02-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: YC072677    Hearing Date: February 3, 2023    Dept: M

Hearing Date:                         February 3, 2023

Moving Parties:                      Defendant and cross-complainant Majdi Alokour

Responding Party:                  None

Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement

            The court considered the moving papers.  No opposition was filed.

RULING

            The motion is GRANTED.  Defendant and cross-complainant Majdi Alokour is to submit proposed judgment in the amount of $100,000 in favor of defendant and against plaintiff and cross-defendant Mossa Alkordi.

BACKGROUND

On February 14, 2018, plaintiff Mossa Alkordi filed a complaint against Majdi Alokour for (1) breach of contract, (2) money had and received, (3) slander, (4) IIED, and (5) intentional interference with prospective business advantage.

On April 19, 2019, Majdi Alokour filed a cross-complaint.

On August 12, 2019, plaintiff filed a notice of conditional settlement.

On December 2, 2019, the court dismissed the complaint and cross-complaint and retained jurisdiction under CCP §664.6.

LEGAL AUTHORITY

CCP §664.6 states:  “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.” 

“A trial court, when ruling on a section 664.6 motion, acts as a trier of fact.  Section 664.6’s ‘express authorization for trial courts to determine whether a settlement has occurred is 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 (citation omitted).

            CCP §187 states:  “When jurisdiction is, by the Constitution or this Code, or by any other statute, conferred on a Court or judicial officer, all the means necessary to carry it into effect are also given; and in the exercise of this jurisdiction, if the course of proceeding be not specifically pointed out by this Code or the statute, any suitable process or mode of proceeding may be adopted which may appear most conformable to the spirit of this Code.”

DISCUSSION

            Pursuant to CCP §664.6, defendant and cross-complainant Madji Alokour requests that the court enter judgment in favor of defendant and against plaintiff Mossa Alkordi in the amount of $100,000, plus attorney’s fee and costs and interest.

            In a minute order dated December 2, 2019, the court ordered that the complaint and cross-complaint be dismissed with prejudice.  The court retained jurisdiction to make orders to enforce any and all terms of settlement, including judgment, pursuant to CCP §664.6.

            According to the settlement agreement, plaintiff Alkordi was to pay Alokour the sum of $80,000 on the following payment schedule:  $1,000 per month for 12 months commencing October 1, 2019; $2,500 per month for 12 months commencing October 1, 2020; and $3,000 per month until balance paid.  Upon default in payment, Alokour can seek a judgment forthwith for $100,000 less payments made.  The court was requested to retain jurisdiction and “this settlement may be enforced pursuant to” CCP §664.6.

            Defendant states in his declaration that “[a]fter Al Kordi agreed to pay $80,000 over a three year period, he left the state, making no payments to me.”  He states that he recently discovered that plaintiff has returned to California and has “paid me nothing.”  Defendant asserts that he attempted to contact him for a resumption of payments and “he said the deal was not as he wanted it to be settled.”

The court rules as follows:  The court finds that the parties entered into a settlement agreement during the pendency of the case and that plaintiff has failed to comply with the settlement agreement.

            The motion is therefore GRANTED in the amount of $100,000 as plaintiff has not made any payments to credit. 

            Defendant’s request for attorney’s fees is denied.  The settlement agreement does not contain an attorney’s fees clause as to a prevailing party and thus, there is no authority to award.  Defendant cites to law that supports attorney’s fees when the underlying judgment includes an award of attorney’s fees to the prevailing party.  Here, there is no underlying judgment.  Further, CCP §128.7 is inapplicable.  Also, there is no authority to award interest on the settlement amount because judgment has not yet been entered.

            Defendant is ordered to give notice of ruling.