Judge: Gary Y. Tanaka, Case: 21TRCV00191, Date: 2022-08-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21TRCV00191    Hearing Date: August 25, 2022    Dept: B

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SOUTHWEST DISTRICT

Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka                                                                                                    Thursday, August 25, 2022

Department B                                                                                                                                              Calendar No. 8

PROCEEDINGS

Lisa M. Jones, et al. v. Ronald Maxey, et al.

21TRCV00191

1. Lisa M. Jones’ Motion for an Order Setting Aside Dismissal with Prejudice Dated July 7, 2021 and Entering Judgment Against Defendants Randall Whitaker Maxey, M.D. and Biometrics Corp. Pursuant to the Parties’ Stipulated Judgment

   
   

   TENTATIVE RULING

    

               Lisa M. Jones’ Motion for an Order Setting Aside Dismissal with Prejudice Dated July 7, 2021 and Entering Judgment Against Defendants Randall Whitaker Maxey, M.D. and Biometrics Corp. Pursuant to the Parties’ Stipulated Judgment is denied without prejudice.

    

               Background

    

               Plaintiff filed this commercial unlawful detainer action on March 16, 2021.  Plaintiff alleges the following facts.  Plaintiff is the owner and landlord of commercial property located at 447 N. Prairie Ave. Inglewood, CA 90301.  Defendants are the tenants who operate a medical practice.  The lease’s expiration date was February 5, 2020.  To remain on the property after this date, Defendants were required to either exercise the purchase option or exercise the second lease option.  Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to properly exercise either option.

    

               Defendants failed to surrender the property.  Plaintiff then filed a declaratory relief action, Case No. 20STCV06206.  The declaratory relief action sought a judicial determination as to whether either of the options were validly exercised.  The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on February 26, 2021. Defendants still refused to surrender the property and Plaintiff filed the instant action.  On April 2, 2021, Defendants’ request to relate the instant action with Case 20STCV06206 was denied.

    

               On May 25, 2021, Plaintiff and the Defendants executed a Settlement Agreement and Releases (“Settlement Agreement”).  The parties also entered into and executed a Stipulation for Entry of Judgment that included a Proposed Judgment on the same date (“Stipulated Judgment”).

    

               Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement

    

               CCP § 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.”

    

               On May 25, 2021, the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement and a Stipulated Judgment.  (Decl. Nicole Metral, ¶ 2; Decl., Lisa M. Jones, Ex. A.)  Plaintiff submitted evidence that Defendant did not comply with the settlement agreement by failing to make the required monthly payments.  (Decl., Jones, ¶ 7.)

    

               This motion was first heard on July 14, 2022.  At that time, the Court noted that Plaintiff had failed to attach the relevant settlement agreement.  Without reviewing the terms of the settlement agreement, it could not be determined whether jurisdiction was retained by the Court pursuant to CCP § 664.6, and whether Defendants did, in fact, breach the terms of the settlement agreement.  Plaintiff had only attached the Stipulated Judgment.  The motion was continued to the instant date.

    

               In connection with the current hearing date, Plaintiff attached the settlement agreement as Exhibit C to the declaration of Lisa M. Jones.  However, the settlement agreement that was attached was severely redacted.  Declarant states that the redacted portions were not necessary for the Court’s ruling, but the Court cannot determine whether this is true or not without reviewing those terms.  In addition, the Court notes that no sealing order has been sought nor entered by the Court.

    

               Thus, Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order Setting Aside Dismissal with Prejudice Dated July 7, 2021 and Entering Judgment Against Defendants Randall Whitaker Maxey, M.D. and Biometrics Corp. Pursuant to the Parties’ Stipulated Judgment is denied without prejudice.

    

               Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.