Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 22STCV09532, Date: 2022-08-23 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: 22STCV09532    Hearing Date: August 23, 2022    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff

RESPONDING PARTIES: Defendants Sanjeet Singh Veen (“Veen”), In and Out Tire, LLC (“IOT”); and Tire Super Center of Orlando, LLC (“TSC”) (collectively, “Defendants”)

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

BACKGROUND

This action arises out of the alleged breach of a settlement agreement.  On March 17, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint (the “Complaint”) alleging: (1) breach of contract; (2) fraud; (3) violation of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (4) promissory estoppel. 

On July 19, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion to enforce settlement agreement (the “Motion”) pursuant to CCP section 664.6.  The Motion requests that the Court enforce the terms of the settlement agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) which forms the basis of this action against Veen and IOT.  The Motion additionally requests that the Court enter judgment against Veen and IOT and order them to pay attorney’s fees.[1]

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.  (CCP § 664.6, subd. (a).)  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.  (Id.)  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.) 

Plaintiff present evidence of the Settlement Agreement entered into by Plaintiff, IOT and nonparty In and Out Tire Nadeau, LLC (“Nadeau”) on October 29, 2021.  (Declaration of Frank Chica (“Chica Decl.”) ¶ 3, Exhibit A.)  The Settlement Agreement was entered into to resolve a dispute in the case styled as Jesus Gonzalez v. In and Out Tire Nadeau, LLC, et al., LASC Case No. 20STCV38431 (the “Prior Action”).  A stipulation for the entry of judgment (the “Stipulation”) was also entered into by Plaintiff, IOT, and Nadeau.  (Chica Decl., Exhibit B.)  The Stipulation provides for Plaintiff’s entitlement to obtain a judgment against IOT and Nadeau if they were to default on the Settlement Agreement.  (See id.)  Plaintiff has only received one of the monthly payments provided for in the Settlement Agreement.  (Chica Decl. ¶¶ 6-10.)

            The Court is unable to provide the relief requested in the Motion.  First, a motion under CCP section 664.6 cannot be made in a separate action to enter judgment pursuant to the terms of a settlement in a prior action.  (Viejo Bancorp, Inc. v. Wood (1989) 217 Cal.App.3d 200, 208.)  Additionally, the Motion otherwise fails to establish a jurisdictional basis for the Court to enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement under CCP section 664.6.  The evidence submitted in support of the Motion does not establish that the Settlement Agreement and Stipulation were filed in the court presiding over the Prior Action during the pendency of that litigation.  Defendants’ opposition (the “Opposition”) indicates that Plaintiff dismissed the Prior Action without filing the Settlement Agreement and Stipulation or asking that the court reserve jurisdiction.  A review of the court’s docket in the Prior Action confirms this procedural history.  The docket in the Prior Action also reflects that Plaintiff sought to enter judgment in the Prior Action, which the court rejected because the case had already been dismissed.  Plaintiff thereafter filed a motion to vacate the dismissal in the Prior Action, which the court denied on January 24, 2022.  The Court further notes that although the Motion seeks to enforce the Settlement Agreement and enter judgment against Veen, Veen was not a litigant in the Prior Action.  Nor was he a party to the Settlement Agreement or Stipulation.  The Motion glosses over these facts and offers no arguments or evidence as to why the Settlement Agreement is enforceable against Veen. 

            The Court therefore DENIES the Motion in its entirety.  The Court also DENIES Defendants’ request for attorney’s fees, as the terms of the Settlement Agreement provide the basis for the request and the Court lacks jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement Agreement.

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 23rd day of August 2022