Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 20SMCV00420, Date: 2025-06-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20SMCV00420    Hearing Date: June 10, 2025    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Panahpour v. Floegel, Case no. 20SMCV00420

Hearing date June 10, 2025

Defendants/Cross-Complainants’ Motion to Enforce Settlement

Adjoining property owners Panahpour and Floegel/Shetty each sued for breach of contract and trespass and easement violations. The parties entered into a settlement agreement 9/20/21. Defendants move to enforce, asserting lack of compliance with all settlement terms.

Defendants 8 objections to exhibit 6, titled “damage assessment report” of plaintiff’s declaration are OVERRULED.

Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §664.6 provides a summary procedure for the court to enforce a settlement agreement by entering a judgment pursuant to the settlement’s terms. If there are disputed facts on a motion to enforce, the trial court has authority to determine whether the parties entered into a valid and binding settlement. In re Marriage of Hasso (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1174; Corkland v. Boscoe (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 989. A request for the court to maintain jurisdiction must be made “(1) during the pendency of the case, not after the case has been dismissed in its entirety, (2) by the parties themselves, and (3) either in a writing signed by the parties or orally before the court.” Mesa RHF Partners, LP v. City of Los Angeles (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 913, 917.

The parties requested the court retain jurisdiction. Decl. Panahpour exh. 1, para. 8. The settlement terms require the parties to “revise the easement boundary encumbering plaintiff's property and undertake all necessary work to build a boundary wall along this revised easement and ultimate property line adjustment.” Decl. Cleeland para. 5. Defendants assert plaintiff failed to remove encroachments, refused to cooperate in plotting the construction of a boundary wall and to provide an executed grant of easement document. Decl. Cleeland paras. 6-7.

Plaintiff does not dispute the validity or terms of the settlement agreement but argues defendants ought to provide “survey and building and safety documents” to verify “the correctness of the ‘metes and bounds’ of the easement parameters.” Opp. 1:28 – 2:1-2. Plaintiff asserts supporting documents for the proposed easement must be delivered before he can sign the grant of easement. Opp. 3:1-2.

The proposed easement was surveyed twice in the presence of both parties and their attorneys, during which the surveyor conducted a comprehensive evaluation of the proposed easement adjustment. See Decl. Shetty, exh. 4. The surveys determined: (1) the necessity of extending the easement 6 feet 11 inches to the east; and (2) incorporating a 112.7-degree turning radius from the original easement, allowing defendants to reconstruct a previously destroyed gate. Id., see also Decl. Cleeland exh. A. These determinations are compliant with the terms of the settlement. See Decl. Panahpour exh. 1, paras. 1-5.

Emails exchanged between the parties prior to entering into the settlement agreement demonstrate plaintiff’s acceptance of these determinations. See Decl. Cleeland exh. A. These documents were delivered to plaintiff and attached to the motion. See Decl. Shetty paras. 4-5; Mtn. exhs. 1-5.

Plaintiff argues they did not receive the documents. Decl. Miller exh. 2. Even accepting the lack of receipt, the motion was served 5/8/25, a month ago. This is sufficient time to review and sign the grant of easement or otherwise dispute the surveys. Plaintiff’s failure to do so is without justification. Defendants’ motion to enforce GRANTED.