Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 22BBCV00819, Date: 2023-08-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22BBCV00819    Hearing Date: August 18, 2023    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.    Allegations and Relevant Background

Plaintiff Joseph Charles Taddeo, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) filed an unlawful detainer complaint on October 21, 2022 against Defendant Shanta Conic (“Defendant”) regarding the property located at 11815 Laurelwood Drive, Unit 12, Studio City, California 91604. 

On November 2, 2022, the default of Defendant was entered. 

On November 17, 2022, the default of all unknown occupants was entered. 

On November 17, 2022, Judgment – Unlawful Detainer was entered by the Clerk for possession of the premises in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant.

On December 13, 2022, the parties entered into an Unlawful Detainer Stipulation.  The Stipulation stated that judgment shall be entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant.  They agreed that Defendant shall remain in possession of the property through January 8, 2023.  The parties agreed that the record would be sealed provided Defendant vacate the premises by January 8, 2023 and paid the sum of $20,000 to Plaintiff on or before March 15, 2023.  The stipulation stated that if Defendant failed to vacate as provided and failed to make payment, Plaintiff may apply the Court to unseal the record.  In addition, if Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff the $20,000 sum by March 15, 2023, Plaintiff may apply for this Court to enter a money judgment in favor of Plaintiff.  The Court’s December 13, 2022, acknowledged the execution and filing of the Unlawful Detainer Stipulation. 

B.     Motion on Calendar

On July 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to enter judgment pursuant to Stipulation.

The Court is not in receipt of an opposition brief.  

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff moves to enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the Unlawful Detainer Stipulation in the amount of $50,343.95 and for attorney’s fees and costs against Defendant.  Plaintiff further requests that the records be unsealed. 

            In support of the motion, Plaintiff provides his declaration.  He states that on December 13, 2022, he entered the Stipulation with Defendant and filed it with the Court.  (Taddeo Decl., ¶1, Ex. 1.)  He states that while Defendant has vacated the property, Defendant defaulted on the agreement by failing to pay $20,000 to Plaintiff by March 15, 2023 and he has not yet received payment.  (Id., ¶¶2-3.)  Plaintiff requests money judgment in the full amount of unpaid rent of $39,860 based on the rental ledger.  (Id., ¶5, Ex. 2.)  Plaintiff also states that Defendant caused additional damages to the property of $6,706 and sent a letter to Defendant on January 17, 2023 demanding payment for the damage.  (Id., ¶6, Ex. 3.)  He also seeks $3,777.95 in attorney’s fees for bringing this motion.  (Id., ¶7.)  Total, he seeks judgment in the amount of $50,343.95.  (Id., ¶8.) 

            Plaintiff’s counsel, Jason Stillman, states that he incurred $3,777.95 in attorney’s fees and costs for $61.65 in filing fees, $16.30 in filing the reply, $1,350 for 3 hours of time at $450/hour spent on this motion, $1,350 for 3 additional hours of time to file a reply, and $1,000 for his time to appear on the motion.  (Stillman Decl., ¶4.) 

Based on the terms of the Stipulation and Defendant’s default by failure to make the required $20,000 payment pursuant to Stipulation’s terms, the Court finds there is substantive merit to granting the motion to enter judgment based on the Stipulation.  However, the Court declines to enter judgment for the “additional damages” to the property claimed by Plaintiff in the amount of $6,706 as this was not a term of the Stipulation.  Further, the Stipulation did not include an attorney’s fees and costs provision for enforcing the Stipulation in the event of a default.  As such, the Court declines to enter judgment on the $6,706 additional damages amount and $3,777.95 for attorney’s fees and costs.  The Court will only enforce the terms of the Stipulation as stated. 

With respect to the request to unseal the records, the Stipulation’s terms state: “If Defendant fails to vacate as provided herein and fails to pay Plaintiff on or before March 15, 2023, Plaintiff may apply to this Court to unseal the record.”  (Unlawful Detainer Stipulation.)  In other words, Plaintiff may apply to this Court to unseal the record if: (1) Defendant fails to vacate the property and (2) Defendant fails to make payment on or before March 15, 2023.  Based on the agreed terms of the Stipulation, both conditions must be satisfied.  However, here, Defendant has vacated the property.  As such, the request to unseal the record is denied.

Thus, the motion to enforce the Stipulation is granted in part and denied in part.  The Court grants the motion in part and will enter judgment in the amount of $39,860 for the total unpaid rent.  The motion is denied in part as to the request for additional damages, attorney’s fees, and costs.  The request to unseal the record is denied. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Joseph Charles Taddeo, Jr.’s motion to enter judgment pursuant to Stipulation is granted in part and denied in part.  The motion is granted in part such that the Court will enter judgment in the amount of $39,860 for the total unpaid rent.  The motion is denied in part as to the request for additional damages, attorney’s fees, and costs.  The request to unseal the record is denied.  Plaintiff is ordered to electronically submit a proposed judgment that conforms to this order for the Court’s signing.

Plaintiff shall provide notice of this order.