Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 24NNCV04421, Date: 2025-04-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24NNCV04421    Hearing Date: April 25, 2025    Dept: A

MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT

NOTICE:

The Court is not requesting oral argument on this matter.  The Court is guided by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) whereby notice of intent to appear is requested.  Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no argument is required and any 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 received.  

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

ALLEGATIONS: 

Marcellus Ellis (Plaintiff) currently maintains two legal actions against ATS Truck Stop, LLC, Aram Eric Semerdjian (Defendants) under LASC Case Nos. 24NNCV04287, 24NNCV04421. Both actions stated causes of action for Claim and Delivery in regard to four freight hauling trucks owned by Plaintiff. Plaintiff generally alleges that Defendants wrongfully kept him from retrieving the trucks, which were parked at a facility owned by Defendants. Defendants contend that they denied Plaintiff access to the trucks because Plaintiff had failed to pay storage fees. Defendants contend that the parties had entered an agreement for the trucks to be parked on their property and Plaintiff failed to pay the approximately $85,000.00 due and owing.

In September 2024, the parties entered into a “Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release” (the Agreement). (Kadin Decl. ¶ 6, Exh. 1.)  The Agreement clearly indicates it was intended as a settlement of both lawsuits. (See Id. at p. 10.) Plaintiff agreed to that he would remit $20,000 via certified check to Defendants’ counsel on October 4, 2024. (Id. ¶ 1.) Plaintiff also agreed that he would remove negative online postings regarding Defendants and would have no further contact with Defendant Semerdjian. (Id. ¶¶ 2-3.) In exchange, Defendants would allow Plaintiff to retrieve the trucks within 3 business days of the certified check clearing. (Id. ¶¶ 4-5.)

Plaintiff has rendered no opposition to these motions. The Court notes that pursuant to C.R.C. Rule 8.54(c), failure to oppose a motion may be deemed consent to its being granted.

ANALYSIS: 

I.                    LEGAL STANDARD 

C.C.P. § 664.6 states: "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. 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."

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.) To enforce a written settlement agreement under C.C.P. section 664.6, the following three elements must be met: (1) the parties must have come to a meeting of the minds on all material points; (2) there must be a writing that contains the material terms of the agreement; and (3) the writing must be signed by the parties. (Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 797-98.)

C.C.P. § 664.6 "require[s] the signatures of the parties seeking to enforce the agreement under [Code of Civil Procedure] section 664.6 and against whom the agreement is sought to be enforced." (J.B.B. Investment Partners, Ltd. v. Fair (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 974, 985.) C.C.P. § 664.6's "requirement of a 'writing signed by the parties' must be read to apply to all parties bringing the section 664.6 motion and against whom the motion is directed." (Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 299, 306; see Sully-Miller Contracting Co. v. Gledson/Cashman Const., Inc. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 30, 35-37 ["A written settlement agreement is not enforceable under section 664.6 unless it is signed by all of the parties to the agreement, not merely the parties against whom the agreement is sought to be enforced."].) "A procedure in which a settlement is evidenced by one writing signed by both sides minimizes the possibility of ... dispute[s] and legitimizes the summary nature of the section 664.6 procedure." (Robertson v. Chen (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1290, 1293.) 

II.                 MERITS

As described above, the Court finds Defendants have sufficiently demonstrated the existence of a settlement agreement in this case. (See Exh. 1.) Defendants have produced a writing which was executed by Plaintiff, and which was clearly intended to settle the claims at issue in these two lawsuits. Defendants have also submitted the declaration of their counsel, David Kadin (Kadin), who attests that Plaintiff has failed to remit any settlement payment. Despite dozens of telephonic requests, Plaintiff has never remitted any portion of the settlement payment. (Kadin Decl. ¶ 7.)

The Court has reviewed Defendants’ submissions and determined Plaintiff to be in default of the Agreement. Regardless, Defendants request is that the Court enter an order granting judgment in the amount of $52,000.00. Defendants state this amount is calculated as:

[T]he sum of $20,000.00 due October 7, 2024, plus storage charges of $40/day/4 trucks /4 spaces which is $40/day x 4 spaces for the 4 trucks = $160/day x 200 days from October 7, 2024 to the April 25, 2025 hearing of this motion = $32,000.00 for a total of $52,000.00.

(See Proposed Order.)

The Court finds this request is unsupported by the Agreement. C.C.P. § 664.6 only authorizes the entry of judgment “pursuant to the terms of the settlement” Upon review, the Agreement contains no provision which authorizes the additional $32,000 requested. The Agreement is silent as to what should occur in the absence of default and makes no provision for storage fees accrued after the Agreement is entered. To the extent that the C.C.P. § 664.6 authorizes the Court to enter judgment on the Agreement, monetary recovery appears limited by the Agreements provision for $20,000.

Defendants alternatively request that the Court, “declare the settlement void due to the entire failure to perform.” C.C.P §664.6 authorizes the Court to enforce settlement agreements based on the terms of the settlement agreement.   The section is not one in which the Court grants declaratory relief finding a settlement agreement void.  The Court is unaware of any authority which permits it to declare a settlement void upon an asserted breach by one of the parties.  In the absence of any authority on this point, the Court finds the request cannot be granted.  The relief granted can be for the monetary damages set forth in the agreement as well as dismissing the case with prejudice as set forth in the agreement.  As to other rights or legal obligations as a result of the additional storage costs and expenses, those are beyond the scope of the settlement agreement and the Court takes no action.

In short, C.C.P. § 664.6 does not authorize the relief Defendants request. While Defendants have sufficiently demonstrated that the existence of an enforceable settlement agreement, they have requested entry of a judgment unsupported by terms of that settlement.  Defendants shall submit a revised judgment consistent with this ruling.

--- 

RULING:

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records. 

ORDER 

ATS Truck Stop, LLC, Aram Eric Semerdjian’s Motion to Enforce Settlement came on regularly for hearing on April 25, 2025, 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 TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT IS GRANTED.

DEFENDANTS ARE TO SUBMIT A REVISED JUDGMENT CONSISTENT WITH THIS ORDER.

STATUS RE: PROPOSED JUDGMENT IS SET FOR MAY 22, 2025 (NON-APPEARANCE)

DEFENDANT ATS TRUCK STOP, LLC TO GIVE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.