Judge: Helen Zukin, Case: 19SMCV01867, Date: 2023-03-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19SMCV01867    Hearing Date: March 15, 2023    Dept: 207

Background

Plaintiff Villa Erripa, LLC (“Plaintiff”) brought this action against Defendants Walter Adrian and Pamela Estelle Rumph (“Defendants”) to recover unpaid rent allegedly owed to Plaintiff. This action was previously dismissed at the joint request of the parties pursuant to a settlement agreement. As part of this settlement, Defendants were required to make monthly payments to Plaintiff or face entry of a stipulated judgment against them. Plaintiff now moves the Court to vacate the dismissal of this action and enter judgment against Defendants, claiming they have failed to make the monthly payments required by the parties’ agreement. Plaintiff’s motion is unopposed.

Legal Standard

Code Civ. Proc. § 664.6 provides a summary procedure that enables judges to enforce a settlement agreement by entering a judgment pursuant to the terms of the parties’ settlement. In particular, the statute provides:

(a) If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside of 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.

(b) For purposes of this section, a writing is signed by a party if it is signed by any of the following:

(1) The party.

(2) An attorney who represents the party.

(3) If the party is an insurer, an agent who is authorized in writing by the insurer to sign on the insurer's behalf.

(C.C.P.¿§ 664.6(a)-(b).)

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.) One of the requirements is that the agreement must be signed by the parties “seeking to enforce the agreement under section 664.6 and against whom the agreement is sought to be enforced.” (Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel (1999) 74¿Cal.App.4th 299, 305.) The purpose of this requirement is to “facilitate the summary nature of the proceeding by decreasing the likelihood of misunderstandings and ‘minimiz[ing] the possibility of conflicting interpretations of the settlement.” (Id. [citing Levy v. Superior Court (1995) 10 Cal. 4th 578, 585].)

Analysis

In 2021 Plaintiff and Defendants reached a settlement on Plaintiff’s claims and entered into a Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release. (Ex. A to Poumadere Decl.) Under the terms of the settlement, Defendants were to pay Plaintiff the sum of $30,000, to be paid through an initial payment of $2,000 followed by monthly installments of $600 over 47 months beginning on December 15, 2021. (Id. at ¶3.) Once Defendants paid this initial $30,000, the parties agreed Defendants would sit for a debtors examination or deposition regarding their financial position. The agreement then provided a scale for additional payments to be made by Defendants based on the results of that examination. (Id. at ¶4.) Defendants also provided Plaintiff an executed Stipulation for Entry of Judgment, which they agreed Plaintiff could file with the Court if Defendants defaulted on their payment obligations. (Id. at ¶5.) In return, Plaintiff agreed to file a request for dismissal of its claims against Defendants. (Id. at ¶6.) The settlement agreement further provides the Court shall retain jurisdiction under Code Civ. Proc. § 664.6 to enter the judgment as stipulated by the parties. (Id. at ¶14.)

In the Stipulation for Entry of Judgment executed by the parties, the parties agreed to entry of a stipulated judgment against Defendants in the principal amount of $181,928.60 plus interest at the rate of 10% per annum from November 2021. (Ex. B to Poumadere Decl. at ¶1.) Plaintiff agreed to provide Defendants and their counsel with notice if Defendants defaulted on any of their payment obligations. (Id. at ¶4.) If Defendants failed to cure their default within 10 days of Plaintiff’s notice or defaulted three times in any twelve-month period, they agreed Plaintiff would “conclusively have the right to have the court enter the judgment” in the stipulated amount, less any payments made by Defendants to date. (Id.) Plaintiff also agreed to provide notice to Defendants and Defendants’ counsel before applying to the Court for entry of judgment following Defendants’ default. (Id. at ¶5.) Defendants also agreed to pay Plaintiff’s reasonable costs and attorney’s fees incurred in seeking entry of judgment following Defendants’ default. (Id.)

Defendants made payments pursuant to the parties’ agreement totaling $6,600, before defaulting on the payments required for the months November 2022 through February 2023. (Poumadere Decl. at ¶¶14-16.) Pursuant to the parties’ agreement, Plaintiff seeks entry of judgment against Defendants in the amount of $204,140.75, calculated as $181,928.60 in principal, $24,257.15 in interest, and $4,555 in attorney’s fees and costs, less $6,600 in payments made by Defendants. The Court notes Plaintiff’s calculation of $4,555 in fees and costs should be reduced by $875, which was estimated to be incurred in responding to an opposition to this motion. As no opposition has been filed, Plaintiff did not incur this estimated $875.

However, as set forth above, the parties’ stipulation required Plaintiff to provide notice of their motion for entry of judgment to Defendants themselves as well as Defendants’ counsel. (Ex. B to Poumadere Decl. at ¶5.) The proof of service attached to Plaintiff’s motion indicates service was made on Defendants’ counsel, but does not indicate service on Defendants themselves. On the information before it, the Court cannot determine that Defendants were personally given notice of Plaintiff’s instant motion as required by the parties’ stipulation. The Court will continue the hearing on this matter to allow Plaintiff to provide such notice to Defendants before the Court enters judgment against them.

Conclusion

The hearing on this motion is continued to April 5, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. At least four court days before the hearing, Plaintiff shall file a declaration attesting to the notice provided to Defendants pursuant to the terms of paragraph 5 of the parties’ stipulation.