Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 22STCV10236, Date: 2023-05-02 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: 22STCV10236    Hearing Date: May 2, 2023    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs

OPPOSINT PARTY: Defendant FCA US LLC (“Defendant”)

The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers.  

BACKGROUND

            This action arises out of the purchase of an allegedly defective vehicle (the “Vehicle”).  Plaintiffs’ complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges: (1) violation of Song-Beverly Act (breach of express warranty); (2) violation of Song-Beverly Act (breach of implied warranty); and (3) negligent repair. 

On March 1, 2023, Plaintiffs filed: (1) a motion to enforce settlement (the “Settlement Motion”); and (2) a motion for sanctions (the “Sanctions Motion”).

MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT

Under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 664.6, 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.  (CCP § 664.6.)  If requested by the parties, the court may retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce settlement until performance in full of the 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.) 

Plaintiffs accepted Defendant’s CCP section 998 offer and entered into a settlement agreement (the “Settlement”) on October 19, 2022.  (Declaration of Jacob Cutler (“Cutler Decl.”) ¶ 3, Exhibit A.)  The Settlement states, in part:

“Please be advised that due to current circumstances, the settlement payment may be delayed up to 60 days after execution and return of this offer…  This offer is made pursuant to Goodstein v. Bank of San Pedro (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 899, 323 Cal.Rptr.2d 740, in that a judgment will not be entered.  Rather, the Complaint will be dismissed with prejudice.”  (Cutler Decl., Exhibit A at 2.)

            Defendant failed to comply with the Settlement within the 60-day period.  (See Cutler Decl. ¶¶ 5-10.)  Defendant presents evidence that staff turnover at its counsel’s law firm delayed the processing of Plaintiffs’ settlement.  (See Declaration of Scott S. Shepardson (“Shepardson Decl.”) ¶¶ 5-7.)  On March 3, 2023, Defendant’s counsel received Plaintiffs’ settlement check and began the process to facilitate the surrender of Plaintiffs’ Vehicle.  (See Shepardson Decl. ¶¶ 17-18.)  Plaintiffs surrendered the Vehicle on March 13, 2023, and received their settlement check on Mach 15, 2023.  (Shepardson Decl. ¶ 19.)

            It is undisputed that Plaintiffs have surrendered their Vehicle and have now received the payment specified in the Settlement from Defendant.  The Settlement Motion is therefore moot insofar as it seeks to compel Defendant’s compliance with the terms of the Settlement.  Plaintiffs do not make a compelling argument to support their request to require Defendant to pay post-judgment interest for the period during which payment was overdue.  No judgment has been entered, and the Settlement provides that no judgment is to be entered; therefore, there is no unpaid judgment on which interest is owed.  (See Covert v. FCA USA, LLC (2022) 73 Cal.App.5th 821, 838-39.)  The Court therefore DENIES the Settlement Motion.

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

CCP section 128.5 provides for sanctions against a party who is guilty of “actions or tactics, made in bad faith, that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.”  (CCP § 128.5, subd. (a).)  A reasonable interpretation is that CCP section 128.5 also applies to entire actions not based on good faith that are frivolous or cause unnecessary delay in the resolution of a dispute.  (Lesser v. Huntington Harbor Corp. (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 922, 930.)  CCP section 128.5 authorizes trial courts to order payment of reasonable expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of a litigation opponent’s tactics or actions not based on good faith which are frivolous, or which cause unnecessary delay.  (Olmstead v. Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 804, 809.)  Recovery is dependent on a finding of subjective bad faith.  (See In re Marriage of Sahafzadeh-Taeb & Taeb (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 124, 134-35.)

            The Court finds that notwithstanding the delay in effectuating the terms of the Settlement, Plaintiffs have not presented sufficient evidence that Defendant acted in subjective bad faith to merit the imposition sanctions under CCP section 128.5.  The Court therefore DENIES the Sanctions Motion.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

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 2nd day of May 2023