Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: 21STCV04078, Date: 2022-09-22 Tentative Ruling

Please contact Department 52 at SMCDEPT52@lacourt.org and send a copy of the email to all parties, to advise the courtroom staff if parties are submitting on the court’s tentative ruling.
Please provide the Case Name, Case Number, and party.

Case Number: 21STCV04078    Hearing Date: September 22, 2022    Dept: 52

Tentative Ruling:

            Plaintiff Suren Manukyan’s Motion to Enforce Settlement and Motion for Sanctions

Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Settlement

Plaintiff Suren Manukyan moves to enforce his settlement agreement with defendant Nissan North America, Inc.

CCP § 664.6(a) provides, “If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside the presence of 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.”

In May 2022, the parties agreed to settle this case for $53,932.12.  (Barry Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. 1.)  The agreement provides for the court’s continuing jurisdiction under CCP § 664.6.  (Id., p. 3.)  Defendant Nissan North America, Inc. has not paid plaintiff because of a delay in processing the settlement check.  (Morales Decl., ¶¶ 2-6.)  Defendant expected the check would be ready and sent to plaintiff during the week preceding this hearing.  (Id., ¶ 7.)  

Though defendant has offered a reasonable explanation for the delay, the court finds it appropriate to enter judgment pursuant to the settlement’s terms under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.  Breaching the settlement agreement is not a prerequisite to entering judgment under that section.

The motion is granted.  The court will enter judgment of $53,932.12 for plaintiff pursuant to the terms of the parties’ written settlement agreement.  Plaintiff may choose to pursue formal efforts to collect on that judgment. 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions

            Plaintiff Suren Manukyan moves for $4,320 in sanctions against defendant Nissan North America, Inc. under CCP § 128.5. 

            Plaintiff contends Nissan’s failure to pay the money owed under the settlement agreement constitutes “actions or tactics, made in bad faith, that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.”  (CCP § 128.5(a).)  Section 128.5 applies to litigation tactics.  “ ‘Actions or tactics’ include, but are not limited to, the making or opposing of motions or the filing and service of a complaint, cross-complaint, answer, or other responsive pleading.”  (CCP § 128.5(b)(1).)  Failing to timely pay under a settlement agreement is not an “action or tactic” of litigation subject to sanctions under section 128.5. 

            Moreover, plaintiff fails to show defendant Nissan North America, Inc. acted in bad faith.  Defendant explains that the delay resulted from a mistake in processing the settlement agreement.  (Morales Decl., ¶¶ 2-6.)  Nissan’s process for issuing a check requires specifying whether it is a settlement for repurchase or for “repurchase equivalent.”  (Id., ¶ 4.)  Here, Nissan initially gave its counsel authority to settle for repurchase—but plaintiff had already returned his vehicle at the end of its lease, so Nissan’s counsel needed authority for “repurchase equivalent.”  (Ibid.)  Plaintiff provides insufficient evidence that Nissan’s delay was an intentional act in bad faith.

            The motion is denied.