Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 20BBCV00099, Date: 2024-04-12 Tentative Ruling

REQUESTING ORAL ARGUMENT PER CRC 3.1308

The Court will attempt to post all Tentative Rulings at least the day prior to the hearing by 3:00 p.m.; however, the Court does not post Tentative Rulings for all matters.  

The Court will indicate in the Tentative Ruling whether the Court is requesting oral argument.  For cases where the Court is not requesting argument, then the Court is guided by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) where the Court requests notice of intent to appear.  Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, a party seeking argument should notify "all other parties and the court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention to appear and argue."  The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no argument is requested.   

Notice may be given either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818) 260-8412.

Notice of the ruling must be served as indicated in the tentative.  Remote appearances are permitted for all law and motion unless otherwise indicated by the Court.  

 

Case Number: 20BBCV00099    Hearing Date: April 12, 2024    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

 

TENTATIVE RULING

APRIL 12, 2024

 

ENFORCEMENT OF SETTLEMENT

Los Angeles Superior Court Case # 20BBCV00099

 

MP:     Catalina Sandoval (Plaintiff)

RP:      None

 

 

NOTICE:

 

The Court is requesting oral argument on this matter on the limited issue of the responsible party to the settlement agreement.  Whether all defendants are liable jointly and severally or simply RK Company, Inc.

 

Case History

 

On September 13, 2023 the parties reached a settlement through mediation in which the defendants, William S. Prevots III and RK Company, Inc. dba Cigar Cartel in which RK Company, Inc. (“RK”) agreed to pay $45,000 to Plaintiff to settle the case.   The payment would be made within 60 days of defense counsel receiving a fully executed settlement agreement and an IRS W-9.  The settlement check was to be made payable to “The Gilleon Law Firm.” (Corrales Decl. Exh 1, Settlement Agreement ¶2.1)

 

The settlement agreement further states that:

 

Each party hereto shall bear all attorney’s fees and costs arising from the actions of its own counsel in connection with the Action, this Settlement Agreement and the matters and documents referred to herein, the filing of a Dismissal of the Complaint, and all related matters.  (Exh 1, Settlement Agreement ¶4).

 

The settlement agreement also contained an agreement that the Superior Court shall retain jurisdiction pursuant to CCP §664 et seq., which would include CCP §664.6.

 

Despite having complied with the prerequisites for payment and multiple attempts to obtain payment, the settlement remained unpaid. (Corrales Decl. Exh 2)

 

Issue Before the Court

 

The Plaintiff seeks an order enforcing the judgment and an order for attorney’s fees pursuant to Government Code §12940.   Plaintiff requests an initial order enforcing the settlement agreement and to retain jurisdiction to file a motion for attorney’s fees.

 

Law and Analysis

 

CCP §664.6(a) states that, “If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in writing signed by the parties outside the presence of the court […] 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 may retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement.”

 

From the information provided to the Court, the parties entered into a valid settlement agreement, the Plaintiff met all conditions precedent to RK’s obligation to perform, Plaintiff sought to have RK remedy its breach which it failed to do.   The Plaintiff has met its burden to show a valid and enforceable settlement agreement, and the Court’s continuing jurisdiction.

 

Under what is commonly known as the American Rule, each party to a contract pays its owne attorney fees.  Kim v. Euromotors West/The Auto Gallery (2007) 149 Cal. App. 4th 170.  CC §1021 unless attorney’s fees are specifically provided by statute, attorney fees are left to agreement between the parties.  CC §1717(a) applies to enforcement of settlement agreements, as to other actions on a contract and permits attorney’s fees to a prevailing party for enforcement.  Notwithstanding the above, CC §1717 does not bar a fee award where the prevailing party’s right to recover fees arises under a fee-shifting statute.  In some instances, an award of attorney’s fees is possible even where the matter is resolve by a settlement agreement, absent an enforceable agreement to the contrary.  Kim v. Euromotors West/The Auto Gallery, supra 149 Cal. App. 4th at 178-179.

 

Conclusion

 

Judgment entered against RK Company, Inc. in the amount of $45,000.  The request for attorney’s fees shall remain reserved by the Court subject to CCP §664.6 and Government Code §12940.

 

ORDER 

 

Catalina Sandoval’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement came on for hearing on April 10, 2024 with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows: 

 

THE MOTION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IS GRANTED.

 

THE COURT RESERVES THE ISSUE CONCERNING ATTORNEY’S FEES.

 

PLAINTIFF TO FILE A JUDGMENT CONSISTENT WITH THIS RULING AS DICTATED BY THE RULES OF COURT.

 

UNLESS ALL PARTIES WAIVE NOTICE, PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

DATE: April 10, 2024                                        _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles