Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: EC068901, Date: 2025-01-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: EC068901    Hearing Date: January 31, 2025    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.    Allegations of Complaint

The complaint, filed August 14, 2018, alleged causes of action for account stated and money lent.  On July 24, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Request for Entry of Default.  On July 29, 2019, the Court entered default judgment for Plaintiff Cavalry SPV I, LLC, against Defendant Meri Penesyan for damages of $28,809.43 and costs of $1,117.24 for a total of $29,926.67.  On November 28, 2022, Defendant filed a motion to set aside/vacate the default judgment.  On December 30, 2022, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to set aside the judgment.

B.     Motion on Calendar

On December 4, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to enforce settlement pursuant to CCP § 664.6.  Plaintiff is requesting a judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of $30,088.43, for the principal amount of the settlement, $28,809.43 and court costs in the amount of $1,279.00.  Defendant has not filed an opposition to this motion.

DISCUSSION

Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §664.6 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: “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.” 

In hearing a § 664.6 motion, the trial court may receive evidence, determine disputed facts, and enter terms of a settlement agreement as a judgment. (Bowers v. Raymond J. Lucia Companies, Inc. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4^th 724, 732.) The Court may also receive oral testimony in addition to declarations. (Kohn v. Jaymar-Ruby, Inc. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4^th 1530, 1533.) 

The Court may interpret the terms and conditions of the settlement (Fiore v. Alvord (1985) 182 Cal.App.3d 561, 566), but the Court may not create material terms of a settlement, as opposed to deciding what terms the parties themselves have previously agreed upon.   (Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 810). 

Strict compliance with the statutory requirements is necessary before a court can enforce a settlement agreement under this statute. (Sully-Miller Contracting Co. v. Gledson/Cashman Construction, Inc. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 30, 37.)  The party seeking to enforce a settlement “must first establish the agreement at issue was set forth ‘in a writing signed by the parties’ (§ 664.6) or was made orally before the court.” (Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel (1999) 74 Cal.App.4^th 299, 304.) 

The settlement must include the signatures of the parties seeking to enforce the agreement, and against whom enforcement is sought. (J.B.B. Investment Partners, Ltd. v. Fair (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 974, 985.) “[A] writing is signed by a party if it is signed by … [a]n attorney who represents the party.” (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 664.6(b)(2).) 

Here, Plaintiff has provided evidence of a writing signed by both parties as required by CCP § 664.6.  (Doan Decl., Ex. 1.)  In the settlement agreement, Defendant agreed to pay $14,404.72 by paying monthly payments of $2,401.00 on or before March 15, 2024, and thereafter, pay the minimum of $2,401.00 on or before the 15th of every month until the final payment of $2,399.72 on or before August 15, 2024.  (Id. at ¶1.)  The Court finds that the Stipulated Settlement Agreement was reasonably well-defined and certain regarding Defendant’s payment obligations and the consequences for not making those payments. The Court also finds that Defendant expressly acknowledged that she understood and agreed to be bound by those terms by signing the agreement. (Doan Decl., Ex. 1, p. 5 [showing that Defendant signed the agreement on May 1, 2024].) Through its counsel’s declaration, Plaintiff has met its burden of showing that Defendant has defaulted on her payments under the agreement. (Doan Decl., Ex. 2.)  Defendant has not filed any opposition indicating otherwise. 

Accordingly, the unopposed motion is granted. Pursuant to Section 664.6, the Court shall enter judgment against Defendant for $30,088.43, consisting of a principal of $28,809.43, costs of $1,279.00. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s motion to enforce settlement is GRANTED.

Plaintiff shall provide notice of this order.

DATED:         January 31, 2025                                 ___________________________

                                                                              John J. Kralik

                                                                              Judge of the Superior Court