Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 24SMCV00121, Date: 2024-12-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV00121    Hearing Date: December 3, 2024    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Zanutta, LLC v. Davis, Case no. 24SMCV00121

Hearing date December 3, 2024

Plaintiff Zanutta’s Motion to Enforce Settlement

Plaintiff landlord Zanutta sued defendant Davis for unlawful detainer. The court entered a stipulated judgment 5/3/24. Plaintiff alleges defendant failed to make timely payments as required by the stipulated judgment, resulting in default. Plaintiff brought an ex parte application to shorten the time for judgment to be entered. Min. Order 11/15/24. Defendant opposed, arguing the motion is unnecessary, as plaintiff has possession of the property, and to the extent plaintiff seeks back-rent, such requests are barred by the stipulated judgment.

If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties, for settlement of the case, the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement. If requested by the parties, the court retains jurisdiction to enforce the settlement. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §664.6.

The parties stipulated the court would retain jurisdiction. Plaintiff argues defendant failed to make payments due 10/1/24 and 11/1/24 until 11/7/24, which plaintiff rejected, as defendant was in default. Defendant does not contest the late payments but argues plaintiff has possession of the property, and he is willing and attempted to make the remaining payments under the terms of the stipulated judgment, rendering the motion unnecessary. Defendant asserts plaintiff brings the instant motion so as to collect back-rent in the future. This is speculative and not before the court. The only issue is whether the terms of the stipulated judgment were breached. Since defendant failed to pay, he breached the terms of the stipulated judgment. Motion GRANTED.