Judge: Keri G. Katz, Case: 37-2021-00023765-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2023-09-01 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - August 31, 2023

09/01/2023  08:30:00 AM  C-74 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Keri Katz

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Breach of Contract/Warranty Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2021-00023765-CU-BC-CTL LAKHA PROPERTIES SAN DIEGO LLC VS CFG UNIVERSITY LLC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Plaintiff's motion to enforce the settlement agreement and award of attorneys' fees is GRANTED.

1. Jurisdiction Plaintiff brings this motion pursuant to CCP § 664.6 [Entry of judgment pursuant to terms of stipulation for settlement]. This section provides: 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.

Plaintiff submits evidence of a Settlement Agreement signed by both Plaintiff and Defendant and a Stipulation signed by both Plaintiff and Defendant. The Settlement Agreement provides, in part: 5. Request for Court to Retain Jurisdiction. The Parties will enter into a stipulation and proposed order requesting the Court to retain jurisdiction over them to enforce this Agreement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 and enter judgment should there be a breach.

The Stipulation was filed with the Court on October 6, 2021, and signed by this Judge on October 22, 2021. It states in part: WHEREAS, the Parties request the Court to retain jurisdiction over them pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 to enforce the settlement and enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. . . .

Defendant argues the Stipulation is ineffective because it was signed by the attorneys and not the parties as required by CCP § 664.6. However, the legislature amended the statute, effective January 1, 2021, to provide that 'a writing is signed by a party if it is signed by any of the following: (1) the party, (2) an attorney who represents the party.' (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6, subd. (b).) Both the Settlement Agreement and the Stipulation were signed by the attorneys after January 1, 2021. Therefore, the Stipulation is valid under CCP § 664.6.

2. Merits Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2958796  2 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  LAKHA PROPERTIES SAN DIEGO LLC VS CFG UNIVERSITY LLC  37-2021-00023765-CU-BC-CTL Plaintiff contends it is entitled to recover $481,482.11 due to Defendant's breach of the Settlement Agreement. Plaintiff relies upon the following provision of the Settlement Agreement: 4. Stipulation of Judgment. If Tenant breaches this Agreement or fails to pay any of the monthly payment obligations under the Lease, the Landlord shall be entitled to a judgment pursuant to the terms of this Agreement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, including but not limited to, a judgment for all outstanding balance owed without the benefit of Reduced Rent, Waiver of Base Rent, or Deferred Rent. Tenant waives any right it may have to (i) request or have a hearing upon the judgment entered as a result of this Stipulation; (ii) any trial or appeal; or (iii) any statement of decision. This provision does not limit the right of Lakha to separately recover future rent that is due and owing or any other remedies for default under the Lease.

Defendant contends that Plaintiff transferred its right to all future rents when it sold the property and transferred the lease. However, the Settlement Agreement does not pertain to future rents, it pertains to unpaid past rents. The amounts covered by the Settlement Agreement are amounts Defendant had already accrued and owed to Plaintiff. Therefore, pursuant to the plain language of the Settlement Agreement, Plaintiff is entitled to recover the unpaid rent which accrued while Plaintiff owned the property. The court will hear any credits that the defendant is entitled to based on payments it made to Plaintiff.

3. Attorneys' Fees The Settlement Agreement contains a provision regarding attorneys' fees which states: 16. Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Expenses. Each of the Parties shall bear its own attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses incurred in relation to this Agreement, the Complaint, and the allegations therein.

However, in the event that either Party has to take legal action to enforce this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover all of its expenses, costs, and attorneys' fees.

Neither party disputes the existence or validity of this provision. Therefore, Plaintiff, as the prevailing party, is entitled to recover attorneys' fees in the amount of $7,115.50.

Conclusion Plaintiff's motion to enforce the settlement agreement is GRANTED.

The court orders Plaintiff to submit a judgment, consistent with the court's final order, within 10 days of the order.

If this tentative ruling is confirmed the Minute Order will be the final order of the court and the parties shall not submit any further order on this motion.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2958796  2