Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 21TCV37542, Date: 2022-07-28 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 56 JUDGE HOLLY J. FUJIE, LAW AND MOTION RULINGS. The court makes every effort to post tentative rulings by 5.00 pm of the court day before the hearing. The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)], and are also available in the courtroom on the day of the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(b)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) call Dept 56 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (213/633-0656) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. Court reporters are not provided, and parties who want a record of motions and other proceedings must hire a privately retained certified court reporter.

Case Number: 21TCV37542    Hearing Date: July 28, 2022    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Shelley Cheung and Nelson Cheung (“Moving Defendants”) 

The Court has considered the moving papers.  No opposition papers were filed.  Any opposition papers were required to have been filed and served at least nine days before the hearing under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 1005, subdivision (b).

BACKGROUND

This action arises out of a landlord/tenant relationship.  Moving Defendants filed a motion to enforce settlement agreement (the “Motion”) arguing that Plaintiff waived her rights to pursue this action pursuant to a settlement agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) she entered into with Moving Defendants to resolve an unlawful detainer proceeding in the case styled as Nelson Cheung v. Yvonne Duran, LASC Case No. 21PDUD00798 (the “UD Action”).

DISCUSSION

Under CCP section 664.6, if the 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 the performance of the full terms of the settlement.  Settlement language cannot purport to vest the trial court with retained jurisdiction after dismissal.  (Hagan Engineering, Inc. v. Mills (2003) 115 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1008.)  A party must apprise the court, within the settlement agreement or otherwise, of the desire of the parties that the court retain jurisdiction of the case.  (Id.) 

Moving Defendants argue that the Settlement Agreement in the UD Action precludes the present matter because it contained a general release under Civil Code section 1542.  (See Exhibit A.)  Moving Defendants previously attempted to enforce the Settlement Agreement in  the UD Action and state that their attempt was denied on the ground that the court in the UD Action lacked jurisdiction because possession of the subject property was no longer at issue.  (Motion 4:6-9.)  Moving Defendants provide no evidence of the UD Action court’s ruling on their previous attempt to enforce the Settlement Agreement.[1] 

In fact, a review of the docket in the UD Action reflects that on May 31, 2022, Moving Defendants’ earlier attempt to enforce the Settlement Agreement and have the present action dismissed was denied on the basis that that the Settlement Agreement did not preclude the present action. 

The Court therefore DENIES the Motion.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

In consideration of the current COVID-19 pandemic situation, the Court¿strongly¿encourages that appearances on all proceedings, including this one, be made by LACourtConnect if the parties do not submit on the tentative.¿¿If you instead intend to make an appearance in person at Court on this matter, you must send an email by 2 p.m. on the last Court day before the scheduled date of the hearing to¿SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org¿stating your intention to appear in person.¿ The Court will then inform you by close of business that day of the time your hearing will be held. The time set for the hearing may be at any time during that scheduled hearing day, or it may be necessary to schedule the hearing for another date if the Court is unable to accommodate all personal appearances set on that date.¿ This rule is necessary to ensure that adequate precautions can be taken for proper social distancing. 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar. 

      Dated this 28th day of July 2022