Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 19STCV40433, Date: 2023-10-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV40433    Hearing Date: November 15, 2023    Dept: 72

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 72

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiffs Lorenza and Fernando Salvatierra move to enforce the settlement with Defendant Teresa Alvarez pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §664.6.  Plaintiffs request entry of judgment in the amount of the outstanding balance under the settlement agreement, $12,250.

The motion to enforce settlement agreement pursuant to CCP §664.6 is granted.  The dismissal entered on July 29, 2021 is set aside and judgment shall be entered in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendant in the amount of $12,250.  Plaintiffs shall prepare the judgment.

Background

          Plaintiffs Lorenza and Fernando Salvatierra were residential tenants of Defendant Teresa Alvarez.  Plaintiffs allege the property was infested with vermin and uninhabitable.  Plaintiffs allege Defendant collected rent for three years despite refusing to perform repairs or abate any of the slum conditions at the property. 

          On November 12, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendant Alvarez alleging (1) breach of the implied warranty of habitability; (2) breach of the common law duty of care; (3); breach of the common law implied of covenant of quiet enjoyment; (4) violation of Civil Code §1714 (negligent maintenance of premises); (5) violation of Civil Code §1714 (Negligent hiring and supervision); (6) violation of B&PC §17200. 

           On July 16, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Settlement.  On July 26, 2021, a Stipulation and Order was granted and entered.  On July 29, 2021, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the action against Defendant Teresa Alvarez.

          On September 5, 2023, Plaintiffs filed this motion to enforce the settlement agreement.  On October 10, 2023, Defendant Teresa Alvarez filed an opposition, stating that she does not have funds to pay because of an injury, but her daughter has indicated she is willing to make payments of $300 a month. 

          On October 12, 2023, the Court granted Defendant Teresa’s Alvarez’s oral request to continue the hearing on the motion.  Defendant argued that she would be able to come current on the payments and asked for some time to resolve the issue.  The Court granted the extension but has not heard any information about a resolution of this matter.

Legal Standard

           “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. 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.”  (CCP §664.6.) 

          “Section 664.6 was enacted to provide a summary procedure for specifically enforcing a settlement contract without the need for a new lawsuit.”  (Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 809.)  “The statute recognizes that a settlement may be summarily enforced in either of two situations: where the settlement was made orally before the trial court or where it was made in writing outside the presence of the court.”  (Elyaoudayan v. Hoffman (2003) 104 Cal.App.4th 1421, 1428.)  Disputes regarding the terms of the settlement (or other disputed facts) may be adjudicated on a CCP § 664.6 motion, on the basis of declarations or other evidence.  (Malouf Bros. v. Dixon (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 280, 284.)

           Once an action is dismissed, the court loses jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of the suit.  (Wackeen v. Malis (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 429, 437.)  However, pursuant to CCP §664.6, “[i]f 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.”  Thus, a court may retain jurisdiction under CCP 664.6, notwithstanding dismissal, but only if a proper request for retention of jurisdiction is made by the parties.  (Id. at 439-440 (unless parties presented trial court with a proper request to retain jurisdiction for purposes of section 664.6 motions, trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over action to enforce settlement post-dismissal.))

Discussion

          Plaintiffs and Defendant entered into a settlement agreement on July 14, 2021.  (July 26, 2021 Stipulation and Order.)  Pursuant to the settlement agreement, Defendant would pay Plaintiffs $31,000 in full settlement of this litigation.  Defendant would pay the $31,000 in accordance with the following schedule:  (1) an initial payment of $3000 within 5 days of execution of the agreement; and (2) payment of the remaining $28,000 in monthly installments of $750, commencing on August 1, 2021.  (Id. at ¶1, “Settlement Payment.”) 

          Defendant failed to make timely payments for August 2022, September 2022, November 2022, December 2022 and March 2023.  (Motion, Hong Dec., ¶¶2-6.)  Defendant ultimately made the August, September November and December payments after Plaintiffs informed Defendant she was in breach of the settlement agreement (Id. at ¶¶2-6.)  Defendant’s last payment was made in April 2023.  Defendant has not cured the default despite Plaintiffs’ requests that she do so.  (Id. at ¶¶6-9.)  Defendant has paid $18,750 of the $31,000 settlement.  (Id. at ¶10.)  There remains $12,250 outstanding on the settlement.  (Id. at ¶10.)

          Defendant is in breach of the Settlement Agreement.  The Court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement pursuant to CCP §664.6 in the July 26, 2021 Stipulation and Order.  (July 26, 2021 Stipulation and Order, p. 4.) 

          The Court recognizes that there is a practical reason that Defendant has not paid:  she asserts that she has been injured and cannot and is offering to have her daughter make partial payments.  The stipulated settlement agreement by its terms does not make an exception in that circumstance.  The Court encourages the parties to agree to a payment schedule even after the Court issues a judgment for the full amount.