Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 23STCV10586, Date: 2025-03-10 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.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Jerardo Rangel and Josefa Murillo Juarez (“Plaintiffs”)

This is a lemon law action. Plaintiffs filed the complaint (“Complaint”) on May 11, 2023 alleging causes of action for: (1) violation of Song-Beverly Act—Breach of Express Warranty; and (2) violation of the Song-Beverly Act—Section 1793.2.

On December 20, 2024, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion to enforce settlement (the “Motion”). On February 25, 2025, Defendant filed an opposition (the “Opposition”). On March 3, 2025, Plaintiff filed a reply (the “Reply”).

“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.” (Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”), § 664.6, subd. (a).)

Plaintiffs assert that on July 23, 2024, the parties executed a Section 998 Settlement Offer (the “Settlement”). (Samra Decl., Ex. A.) Plaintiffs state that as of the filing of this Motion, Defendant has not complied with the terms of the Settlement, specifically that Defendant has not accepted surrender of the subject vehicle, has not provided a date certain for surrender or payment and has not made payment of $35,000. (Mot. p. 2.) Plaintiffs also request 10% interest per day from the surrender date in the Settlement until the date of the hearing as well as sanctions. (Mot. pp. 4:20-5:19.)

In the Opposition, Defendant asserts that the surrender was effectuated on January 10, 2025 and the settlement check was sent that same day. (Young Decl., ¶ 12.) Defendant asserts that on February 21, 2025, it requested the supplemental settlement check from Plaintiffs’ lender in the amount of $2,502.46 and will send it to Plaintiffs upon receipt. (Young Decl., ¶¶ 13-14.)

In the Reply, Plaintiffs argue that the Court should order sanctions for the delay in effectuating the Settlement. (Reply, p. 2.)

As Defendant has now fully complied with the terms of the Settlement, the Motion is MOOT. The request for sanctions is DENIED.

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.

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court