Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 24BBCV00250, Date: 2024-12-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24BBCV00250    Hearing Date: December 20, 2024    Dept: NCB

 

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

 

 

forwardline financial, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company

 

                        Plaintiff,

            v.

 

puffy mondaes, llc an Idaho Limited Liability Company dba MONDAES MAKERSPACE & SUPPLY; KAREN BROWN, aka KEREN BROWN, an individual, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive

 

                        Defendants.

 

  Case No.:  24BBCV00250

 

  Hearing Date:  December 20, 2024

 

 [TENTATIVE] order RE:

MOTION TO VACATE DISMISSAL UNDER CCP § 664.6 & ENTER JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO STIPULATION; DECLARATION OF JON BLANDA; PROPOSED JUDGMENT;

 

BACKGROUND

A.    Allegations of Complaint

Plaintiff Forwardline Financial, LLC (herein “Forwardline” or “Plaintiff”) filed this breach of contract action against Defendants Puffy Monades, LLC dba Mondaes Makerspace & Supply (“Mondaes”); Karen Brown, aka Keren Brown (“Brown”); and Does 1 through 100, alleging Defendants owe Plaintiff damages in the amount of $47,824.83 pursuant to the underlying contract.

The complaint, filed on January 30, 2024, alleges three causes of action for: (1) contract; (2) common counts; and (3) breach of contract. Plaintiff alleges this is a simple collections case.

 

B.     Relevant Background

On May 31, 2024, Plaintiff filed an Amended to the Complaint, correcting Defendant Karen Brown’s name from “Karen Brown” to “aka Keren Brown.”

C.     Motion(s) on Calendar

            On August 21, 2024, Plaintiff filed a CIV-100, and the Court entered Default as to both Defendant Mondaes and Defendant Brown on the same day.

            On September 4, 2024, Plaintiff filed the underlying Stipulation for Entry of Judgment and Installment Payments & Dismissal of Action with Consent to Court Retaining Jurisdiction Pursuant to CCP § 664.6 & Court Order Thereon which set forth, in pertinent part, as follows:

 

2. A Notice of Settlement shall be filed with the Court as required by applicable rules, notifying the Court of the parties’ settlement and dismissing this case pursuant C.C.P. Section 664.6; No judgment shall be entered provided that said Defendant pays the total amount of $46,361.67 payable as follows:

 

(A)  $1,948.00 shall be paid each and every consecutive month commencing on or before August 15th, 2024 through and including July 15th, 2026 until the total sum of $46,361.67 is paid in full.

 

3. Upon the faithful, timely, and prompt payment of all installments herein above provided for, totaling $46,361.67, and in that event the Stipulation shall be deemed satisfied in full, Plaintiff will dismiss the action with prejudice and submit a request for dismissal to the court regarding the same. Should any payments by Defendants start returning for non-sufficient funds or “account closed”, the Defendants will be in breach of this agreement.

 

4. The Parties further agree that the Court may retain jurisdiction pursuant to C.C.P §664.6 to enforce all terms of this settlement.

 

Upon the faithful, timely and prompt payment of all installments herein above

 

5. Release: Except for the obligations set forth in this settlement Agreement: The parties named above, hereby release each other from the causes of action, arising out of or relating to case number 24BBCV00250.

(See 9.4.24 Stipulation.)

DISCUSSION                                                                                              

CCP section 664.6 provides that “[i]f 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 performance in full of the terms of the settlement.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6.)

“‘[V]oluntary dismissal of an action or special proceeding terminates the court’s jurisdiction over the matter.’”  (Mesa RHF Partners, L.P. v. City of Los Angeles (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 913, 917 [quoting In re Conservatorship of Martha P. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 857, 967) (alteration in original).)  “‘If requested by the parties,’ however, ‘the [trial] court may retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce [a] settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement.’”  (Id. (quoting CCP section 664.6) (emphasis in original).)  “‘Because of its summary nature, strict compliance with the requirements of section 664.6 is prerequisite to invoking the power of the court to impose a settlement agreement.’”  (Id. (quoting Sully-Miller Contracting Co. v. Gledson/Cashman Construction, Inc. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 30, 37).) 

            “A request for the trial court to retain jurisdiction under section 664.6 ‘must conform to the same three requirements which the Legislature and the courts have deemed necessary for section 664.6 enforcement of the settlement itself: the request must be made (1) during the pendency of the case, not after the case has been dismissed in its entirety, (2) by the parties themselves, and (3) either in a writing signed by the parties or orally before the court.’”  (Id. (quoting Wackeen v. Malis (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 429, 440).)  “The ‘request must be express, not implied from other language, and it must be clear and unambiguous.’”  (Id. (quoting Wackeen, supra, 97 Cal.App.4th at 440).) 

           

 

Plaintiff contends that pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation, $1,948.00 be paid by the 15th of each month beginning August 15, 2024, until the entire sum of $47,824.83 is paid. (Mot., pg.3; Blanda Decl., ¶¶ 2-3, Ex. 1.) Plaintiff further claims that as of the date of October 11, 2024, Defendants have made one (1) payment totaling $1,948.00 and have failed to remit further payments since September 19, 2024. (Blanda Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. 2.) Blanda further declares that from September 19, 2024 and through and including September 25, 2024, Plaintiff has been emailing Defendants in an attempt to get them to remit payment in accordance with the payment installments to no avail. (Id.)

The Court notes that Plaintiff did indeed email Defendants on Friday, September 20, 2024; Monday, September 23, 2024; and Wednesday, September 25, 2024 to no avail. Moreover, in accordance with § 664.6, the instant motion conforms to the three requirements of the Legislature to enforce a settlement because (1) the request is being made during the pendency of the case and not after the case has been dismissed in its entirety; (2) by the Plaintiff; and (3) in a writing signed by the parties pursuant to the September 4, 2024 Stipulation. Furthermore, the Court recognizes that it has retained jurisdiction of this action pursuant to § 664.6. As such, the Court finds Plaintiff has properly demonstrated grounds to vacate the default and dismissal and subsequently enter Judgment pursuant to the Stipulation in accordance with CCP § 664.6.

 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.

Plaintiff shall provide notice of this order.

 

                                                    

DATED: December 20, 2024                                     ___________________________

                                                                              John J. Kralik

                                                                              Judge of the Superior Court