Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 23SMCV03019, Date: 2025-05-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV03019    Hearing Date: May 2, 2025    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Ocean Sunrise v. Sturgis, Case no. 23SMCV03019

Hearing date May 2, 2025

Plaintiff Ocean Sunrise’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Plaintiff Ocean Sunrise, LLC sues defendant Sturgis, as individual and trustee of the Leah T. Sturgis Living Trust, for breach of a written settlement agreement. The parties entered into a settlement agreement 1/1/23; Judge Takasugi, LASC Dept. 17 granted plaintiff's motion to enforce the settlement 6/7/23. Plaintiff now alleges defendant failed to comply with the settlement and moves for judgment on the pleadings. Defendant opposes.

Plaintiff requests judicial notice of: (1) LASC Dept. 17 Ruling of 3/3/23; (2) Court judgment, dated 6/7/23; (3) Notice of Violation, issued by the County of Los Angeles Department of Regional Planning, dated 12/23/19; and (4) LASC Dept. 17 Ruling of 3/18/21. Judicial notice of the court records is proper per Cal. Evid. Code §452(d). Judicial notice of official acts by a county is proper per Cal. Evid. Code §452(c). GRANTED.

A motion for judgment on the pleadings attacks defects disclosed on the face of the pleadings or by matters that may be judicially noticed. Alameda County Waste Management Authority v. Waste Connections US, Inc. (2021) 67 Cal App.5th 1162, 1173-1174. A motion for judgment on the pleadings is similar to a demurrer, and rules governing demurrers apply. Id. "Unlike a demurrer, a plaintiff may move for judgment on the pleadings on the ground that the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause or causes of action against the defendant and the answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense to the complaint.” Id. at 1174.

Plaintiff alleges: (1) the parties entered into a settlement agreement. Compl., para 23; exh. 1; (2) the court entered an order enforcing the agreement. Compl., para. 28; RJN 2; and (3) defendant failed to comply with her obligations under the agreement. Compl., para 33.

Defendant argues the settlement agreement is vague and impossible to enforce, and the previous case no. 20STCV40344 is unresolved due to language in the agreement stating, "The court retains jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this judgment under 664.6." RJN 2. Defendant argues the court lacks jurisdiction, and Department 17 is the correct venue.

The Los Angeles Superior Court retains jurisdiction over the underlying settlement, per its terms. This jurisdiction is not limited to Department 17. Defendant cites to Scott v. Industrial Acci. Com. (1956) 46 Cal. 2d 76, 81, arguing the first court to assume and exercise jurisdiction acquires exclusive jurisdiction. This action was properly brought as a separate case arising from alleged breach of the settlement agreement. Venue is proper, and the court has jurisdiction.

Plaintiff argues an order enforcing the settlement agreement has been issued, so defendant's arguments are barred by res judicata. Defendant argues the settlement agreement is vague and offers arguments as to the merits of the agreement; these arguments are not well taken.

There was a final determination that the settlement is binding. RJN 1. Defendant's arguments are barred by res judicata. The only considerations are whether a contract existed between the parties and whether the parties performed. The court examined the merits of the agreement and found it enforceable. RJN 1, 2.

If defendant does not perform, she may be in breach. Defendant fails to offer facts demonstrating performance and argues the settlement is not enforceable. Defendant cannot controvert the terms of the signed agreement per the court's order. RJN 2. Defendant failed to furnish facts sufficient to constitute a defense. Motion for judgment on the pleadings GRANTED.