Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

This is an unlawful detainer action.  Defendants Dylan Omid Keshmir and Megan Pater are tenants of residential property located at 344 S. Rexford Drive #6, Beverly Hills, California 90212 (the “Premises”).  Plaintiff Miriams Well, LLC is the Landlord. 

The parties signed an “Unlawful Detainer Stipulation and Judgment”.  The stipulation provided for judgment of $42,600 which was subject to partial waiver if Tenants made timely payments of (1) $7,200 on July 20, 2023, (2) $7,200 on September 20, 2023, and (3) an additional $200 per month for 12 months beginning October 1, 2023.  The case was dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 664.6. 

Tenants paid $7,200 on July 20, 2023, but made only a partial payment of $6,200 on September 20, 2023.  Tenants also failed to pay ongoing rent, including the additional $200 per month required in the stipulation.   

Pursuant to the stipulation, Landlord would get all financial assistance Tenants received for rent payment during the Covid-19 period, in an amount totaling $28,800, and half would be used to address the habitability issues with the unit.  Tenants would submit written maintenance requests for repairs to Plaintiff.     

This hearing is on Landlord’s motion to vacate dismissal and enforce settlement.  The motion is made on the ground that Tenants defaulted by failing to make the payments required under the Stipulation.  The motion was previously denied because of the Court’s concern that certain habitability issues were not being adequately addressed by Landlord.  Landlord claims that the outstanding issues are being actively addressed, but Tenants have continually placed obstacles in Landlord’s path to prevent inspections and repairs from occurring including changing the locks and having three large breed aggressive dogs that have scared away maintenance workers.   

UNTIMELY OPPOSITION 

¿ 

Tenants were required to file any opposition by March 13, 2024, within nine court days of the hearing date.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b).)  Tenants filed their opposition on March 19, 2024.  The Court declines to consider the untimely-filed opposition. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

¿ 

Code Civ. Proc. §664.6 provides, in pertinent part, 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.”¿¿ 

In hearing a Code Civ. Proc. §664.6 motion, the trial court may receive evidence, determine disputed facts, and enter terms of a settlement agreement as a judgment.¿ (Bowers v. Raymond J. Lucia Companies, Inc. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 724, 732.)  The Court may also receive oral testimony in addition to declarations. (Kohn v. Jaymar-Ruby, Inc. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1530, 1533.)  The Court may interpret the terms and conditions of the settlement (Fiore v. Alvord (1985) 182 Cal.App.3d 561, 566), but the Court may not create material terms of a settlement, as opposed to deciding what terms the parties themselves have previously agreed upon.   (Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 810).¿ 

Strict compliance with the statutory requirements is necessary before a court can enforce a settlement agreement under this statute.¿ (Sully-Miller Contracting Co. v. Gledson/Cashman Construction, Inc. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 30, 37.)¿ The party seeking to enforce a settlement “must first establish the agreement at issue was set forth ‘in a writing signed by the parties’ (§ 664.6) or was made orally before the court.¿ [Citation.]”¿ (Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 299, 304.)¿¿ 

The settlement must include the signatures of the parties seeking to enforce the agreement, and against whom enforcement is sought.¿ (J.B.B. Investment Partners, Ltd. v. Fair (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 974, 985.)¿ “Parties” under Code Civ. Proc. § 664.6 means the litigants themselves, and not their attorneys, must expressly consent to settlement.¿ (Levy v. Superior Court (1995) 10 Cal.4th 578, 586 (“we conclude that the term ‘parties’ as used in section 664.6…means the litigants themselves, and does not include their attorneys of record”).)¿¿¿ 

DISCUSSION 

Landlord is entitled to an order enforcing the settlement agreement with Tenants.¿ Landlord submitted evidence it entered into a written stipulation and judgment with Tenants.  (Ex. 1 to Exhibit List.)  The stipulation is signed by Landlord and Tenants.  (Id.)   

The stipulation states that dismissal was without prejudice pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. 664.6 (id.), which the Court interprets as an agreement to reserve the Court’s jurisdiction to enforce the terms and conditions of the stipulation.   

The stipulation provides that judgment for $42,600 shall be entered in the event of default.  (Id.)  Likewise, if Tenants defaulted, their rights under the lease or rental agreement are forfeited, and the court file will be unsealed.  (Id.) 

Tenants defaulted by making only a partial payment of $6,200 on September 20, 2023 (instead of $7,200).  (Aspen Decl. ¶¶ 4-6.)  Tenants also failed to make ongoing rent payments, including the additional $200 per month required in the stipulation.  (Id. ¶¶7-8.) 

As to the habitability issues that were the focus of concern in the last motion, Landlord has submitted evidence that it has completed requested repairs.  Plaintiff has repaired broken windows and screens, sealed leaking windows, and performed plumbing and electrical upgrades.  (Id. ¶14; Exs. 3-8, 13-14 to Aspen Decl.)  However, Landlord maintains some efforts to repair have been hindered by Tenants either changing the locks or having three large pit-bull and hybrid mix dogs on the Premises which have scared away contractors.  (Id. ¶22.)   

On these facts, the Court concludes Plaintiff has met the requirements of Code Civ. Proc. §664.6, and the Court will reopen the case and enforce the settlement.   

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Landlord’s motion to enforce settlement.  The Court reopens the case and enters judgment in favor of Landlord and against Tenants in the sum of $42,600.  Tenants have forfeited their rights under the lease agreement and must surrender the Premises to the Landlord.  Moreover, the Court orders that the case file be unsealed.   

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

DATED: March 26, 2024 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court