Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case Number: 21STCV41050, Date: 2025-04-22 Tentative Ruling

Counsel may submit on the tentative ruling by emailing Dept. 31 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. The email address is smcdept31@lacourt.org. Please do not call the court to submit on the tentative. Please do not submit to the tentative ruling on behalf of the opposing party. Please do not e-mail the Court if you plan to appear and argue.

In deciding whether to submit on the tentative ruling or attend the hearing and present oral argument, please keep the following in mind:

The tentative rulings authored by this court reflect that the court has read and considered all pleadings and evidence timely submitted to the court in connection with the motion, opposition, and reply (if any). Because the pleadings were filed, they are part of the public record.

Oral argument is not an opportunity to simply regurgitate that which a party set forth in its pleadings. Nor, is oral argument an opportunity to "make a record" when there is no court reporter present and the statements and arguments of counsel are already part of the record because they were set forth in the pleadings. Finally, simply because a party or attorney disagrees with the court's analysis and ruling or is not satisfied with it does not necessarily warrant oral argument when no new arguments will be articulated.

If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify all other parties email that you will not appear at the hearing. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. If all parties to the motion submit, this tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date and it will be memorialized in a minute order. This tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such document will be considered by the Court.

**Tentative rulings on Motions for Summary Judgment will only be available for review in the courtroom on the day of the hearing.

MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AND FOR ORDER TO DEFENDANT TO WITHDRAW AND DISMISS CIVIL HARASSMENT RESTRAINING ORDER

On November 11, 2021, plaintiff Jane Ramsey (“Ramsey” or “Plaintiff”), filed the action against Defendants, Barry Katz (“Katz”) and Katz Entertainment, Inc.[1], asserting causes of action for (1) Promissory Fraud; (2) Breach of Contract; (3) Rescission of Contract; (4) Fraud (Intentional Misrepresentation with Monetary Damages); (5) Restitution (Unjust Enrichment Relief); (6) Conversion; (7) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (8) Fraud and Deceit with Constructive Trust; (9) Declaratory Relief; (10) Breach of Implied in Fact Contract; (11) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; and (12) Common Counts (Money Had and Received). Ramsey and Katz are self-represented.

On May 17, 2021, Katz filed a petition for a civil harassment restraining order (“RO”) against Plaintiff in Case No. 21STRO02368. On June 29, 2021, the trial court issued a five-year civil harassment order requiring Ramsey not to contact Katz or his two sons, and to stay 150 yards away from them at all times.[2]

On October 19 and 20, 2022, Ramsey and Katz executed a settlement agreement to settle this action. The agreement provides, in pertinent part, that Katz agrees to pay Ramsey a confidential amount of money in installments. If two or more payments remain over 5 days late, Ramsey may request the court to enter a judgment for the full amount then due. If five payments are over 5 days late, the RO in favor of Katz and against Ramsey will be extinguished by Katz. Further, Ramsey may move to extinguish the RO if Katz fails to extinguish within 30 days thereof. The court is to retain jurisdiction to interpret, enforce, or otherwise perform any provision of the settlement agreement pursuant to CCP section 664.6

On February 1, 2023, this action was dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Plaintiff’s request.

On March 20, 2025, Plaintiff filed an Amended Motion[3] to Enforce Settlement and For Order to Defendant to Withdraw and Dismiss Civil Harassment Restraining Order. Various terms of the settlement agreement are redacted.

“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.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6.)¿¿¿¿

In hearing a section 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.4th 724, 732.)¿ The court may interpret the terms and conditions to 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).¿ 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. [Citation.]”¿ (Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 299, 304 [holding that a letter confirming the essential terms of a settlement agreement was not a “writing signed by the parties” sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Section 664.6].)¿

Plaintiff seeks court intervention to enforce the Settlement Agreement. Plaintiff argues that Defendant Katz has breached the Settlement Agreement by providing nine late payments and failing to make any payment for August 2024. Plaintiff further argues that because Katz has not paid the 4% interest due on the late payments that renders all the late payments unpaid. (Ramsey Decl., ¶¶ 13-16.) For these reasons, Plaintiff seeks an order to enter the outstanding settlement amount as due and owing, to extinguish the RO, and to award attorney’s fees, costs, and interests pursuant to the Settlement Agreement.

After reviewing the motion, the court finds there are procedural and substantive defects that direct a denial of this motion at this time.

First, Plaintiff improperly redacted portions of her motion and supporting documents without first obtaining a sealing order or protective order. Further, Plaintiff did not include a request for attorney’s fees and costs in her notice of motion.

Second, this court did not issue the RO in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff. Accordingly, the motion to extinguish the RO is not properly before this department and should be brought before the judge that issued the RO.

First, the Settlement Agreement does not clearly authorize Plaintiff to move for entry of judgment based on Katz’s failure to pay 4% interest on late payments. The Settlement Agreement states:

“If two or more payments remain over 5 days late, JR may request the Court to enter a judgment for the full amount then due, crediting any payments received up to that date. At least five days written notice of default must be given before any Court action can be commenced. JR does not waive any right by failing to act on late payment. The amount due for any late payments shall bear 4.0% per annum simple interest and if becomes a judgment then at the legal limit.”

(Ramsey Decl., Ex. A (the “Settlement Agreement”), ¶ 2.D.) Plaintiff submits proof to show Katz made nine late payments with one payment remaining unpaid. Accordingly, only one payment remains over 5 days late. There are no grounds to enter judgment on the full amount due. Plaintiff asks this court to read into the Settlement Agreement an escalation clause for the failure to pay interest on late payments. No such clause exists in this agreement.

Second, and relatedly, because there is evidence of only one outstanding payment, there is no default under the Settlement Agreement. Plaintiff therefore cannot yet seek to enter judgment on the full amount due or extinguish the RO (which as detailed above, must be done in the court which issued the RO).

Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court

[1] Katz Entertainment, Inc. did not appear in the action.

[2] Ramsey appealed the RO. On August 20, 2024, the Court of Appeal affirmed the RO.

[3] Plaintiff’s initial motion was filed on March 18, 2025.