Judge: Gary Y. Tanaka, Case: 21TRCV00548, Date: 2022-09-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21TRCV00548    Hearing Date: September 1, 2022    Dept: B

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SOUTHWEST DISTRICT

 

 

Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka                                                                                                 Thursday, September 1, 2022

Department B                                                                                                                                                Calendar No. 6

 


 

PROCEEDINGS

 

Vasile Properties Airport Plaza, Inc. v. Tribe of 4 Inc., et al.

21TRCV00548

  1. Vasile Properties Airport Plaza, Inc.’s Application for Entry of Judgment   

     

    TENTATIVE RULING


                 Vasile Properties Airport Plaza, Inc.’s Application for Entry of Judgment is granted.

     

                Background

     

                Plaintiff filed the Complaint on July 27, 2021.  Plaintiff alleges the following facts. This is a commercial unlawful detainer action with respect to property identified as 1117 W. Manchester Boulevard, Suite PQS, Inglewood, California 90301.  

     

                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.”

     

                Plaintiff contends that the Stipulation for Return of Possession and Dismissal was executed on August 16, 2021. (Decl., Charles Vasile, Ex. D). Plaintiff states that Defendants breached the terms of the Stipulation.  According to Plaintiff, Defendants failed to comply with Paragraph 2(A) of the Stipulation, and, therefore, pursuant to Paragraph 5 of the Stipulation, Plaintiff is entitled to seek attorneys’ fees, costs, and the remaining unpaid rent.  (Decl., Vasile, ¶¶ 10-28.)  Plaintiff has shown that the Premises were not returned to Plaintiff in its original condition as set forth Paragraph 2(A).  (Decl., Vasile, ¶¶ 10-28.)  The Court notes that Defendants failed to file any written opposition to the motion.  Therefore, the Court determines that Plaintiff has met its burden to establish that a breach of the agreement exists such that a judgment, pursuant to the terms of the stipulation, may be ordered. 

     

                Thus, Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Judgment is granted.

     

                Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.