Judge Kristin S. Escalante , Case 20STCV49138 2023-03-28 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Kristin S. Escalante , Case: 20STCV49138, Date: 2023-03-28 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 24 - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

Submission Instructions.

1. Please notify the courtroom staff by email not later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion. The email address is SMCDEPT24@lacourt.org. Please do not use any other email address. You must cc all other parties on the email.

2. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the Subject line and include your name, contact information, case name and number, date of hearing and the party you represent in the body of the email. 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

3. OFF-CALENDAR should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed to have a motion placed off-calendar and parties are ordered to cancel the reservation on CRS.

4. If all parties submit, the tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date. The moving party shall give notice of the final ruling.

5.Tentative rulings are not invitations or opportunities to file further documents relative to the hearing before the Court. Said document(s) will not be considered by the Court.

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Hearing on Motion to Enforce Settlement agreement, or in the alternative to set case back on trial docket;

TENTATIVE RULING:

The Court has read the moving papers in the above-captioned motions and announces its tentative rulings in open Court.

The Motion to Enforce Settlement agreement, or in the alternative to set case back on trial docket; reservation no.: 355618361666 filed by Plaintiffs Aisha Kinnard et al., on 02/17/2023 is DENIED.

All Plaintiffs (“Plaintiffs”) move for an order enforcing the settlement agreement (“Agreement”) between Plaintiffs and Defendant El Segundo Investments, LLC (“Defendant”) pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. Plaintiff moves on the grounds that Defendant is in material breach of the parties’ Agreement. Plaintiffs also move for attorneys’ fees in the amount of $6,860 and interest in the amount of $291.78.

Discussion

The issue is whether Plaintiff may obtain an entry of judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 (“Section 664.5”).

“If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside of 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6.) “Because of its summary nature, strict compliance with the requirements of [Code of Civil Procedure] section 664.6 is prerequisite to invoking the power of the court to impose a settlement agreement.” (J.B.B. Inv. Partners, Ltd. v. Fair (2014) 232 Cal. App. 4th 974, 984, as modified (Dec. 30, 2014).) “Thus, the statute requires the signatures of the parties seeking to enforce the agreement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 and against whom the agreement is sought to be enforced.” (Ibid. [internal quotations and brackets omitted].)

While neither party disputes whether there is a valid settlement agreement between them, the court’s review of the attached Agreement reveals it does not include Defendant’s signature anywhere. (Declaration of Paul Christensen [“Christensen Decl.”], ¶3, Ex. A, at pp. 5-61.) Accordingly, the court cannot enforce the Agreement under Section 664.6 given its strict requirements and the motion is denied.

Plaintiffs request attorneys’ fees in the amount of $6,860.00 pursuant to paragraph 19 of the Agreement. Paragraph 19 of the Agreement provides that “if any action is brought to enforce the terms of this Agreement, or to recover damages for its breach, then the prevailing party in such action shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in connection with such action against the party(ies) allegedly in breach of the Agreement and no others.” (Christensen Decl., ¶3, Ex. A, at p. 4.) Assuming without deciding that the Agreement authorizes attorneys’ fees in the case of a motion brought under Section 664.6—rather than a separate action—Plaintiffs are not the prevailing party here. Accordingly, the request is denied.