Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 22NWLC20535, Date: 2024-03-06 Tentative Ruling

*** Please Note that the Judicial Officer Presiding in Department 25 is Commissioner Latrice A. G. Byrdsong ***
If you desire to submit on the tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Dept. 25 at the Spring Street Courthouse up until the morning of the motion hearing. The e-mail address is SSCdept25@lacourt.org. The heading on your e-mail should contain the case name, number, hearing date, and that you submit. The message should indicate your name, contact information, and the party you represent. Please note, the above e-mail address is to inform the court of your submission on the tentative ruling. All other inquiries will not receive a response.
Due to overcrowding concerns of COVID-19, all parties shall make every effort to schedule a remote appearance via LACourtConnect (https://my.lacourt.org/laccwelcome) for their next hearing. The parties shall register with LACourtConnect at least 2 hours prior to their scheduled hearing time. 


Case Number: 22NWLC20535    Hearing Date: March 6, 2024    Dept: 25

Hearing Date:                         Wednesday, March 06, 2024

Case Name:                             SALON REPUBLIC, LLC v. JAZMINE LASHAI BONDURANT, aka JAZMINE BONDURNT, an individual; DOES 1 to 20 inclusive.

Case No.:                                22NWLC20535

Motion:                                   Motion to Enforce Settlement and Enter Judgment Against Defendant Pursuant to CCP 664.6

Moving Party:                         Plaintiff Salon Republic, LLC

Responding Party:                   None

Notice:                                    OK

 

Tentative Ruling:                    Plaintiff Salon Republic, LLC’s Motion to Enforce Settlement and Enter Judgment Against Defendant Pursuant to CCP 664.6 is GRANTED.

 

Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in the TOTAL amount of $42,675.08.

 

SERVICE: 

 

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300)                      OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a)                                      OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b))                       OK 

 

OPPOSITION:          None filed as of February 22, 2024                [   ] Late          [X] None 

REPLY:                     None filed as of February 28, 2024                [   ] Late          [X] None 

 

BACKGROUND

 

On August 30, 2022, Plaintiff Salon Republic, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendant Jazmine Lashai Bondurant aka Jazmine Bondurnt (“Defendant”) for breach of contract and common counts.

 

On November 7, 2022, Defendant, in propria persona, filed an Answer to the Complaint. Defendant filed an Amended Answer on January 24, 2023.

 

On April 11, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories and for Award of Sanctions. On July 24, 2023, the Court granted the Motion, ordered Defendant to submit verified responses, without objections, and to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $660. (7-24-23 Minute Order.)

 

On April 11, 2023, Plaintiff also filed a Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Documents and for Award of Sanctions (“MTC RFP”). On July 24, 2023, the Court noted deficiencies in the Motion and continued the hearing to August 23, 2023, to allow Plaintiff an opportunity to correct these deficiencies. On July 28, 2023, Plaintiff filed supplemental papers. Plaintiff indicated that it intended to submit on the moving papers without appearing at the hearing.  On August 23, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s MTC RFP and its request for monetary sanctions in the amount of $660.

 

On May 24, 2023, the Court found that the case is not a “Collection Hub” matter and ordered it transferred for re-assignment. The case was reassigned to Department 25 at the Spring Street Courthouse.

 

On June 16, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Deem Matters Admitted and for Monetary Sanctions. The Court granted the Motion and Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions in the amount of $680.

 

 

 

On October 19, 2023, the Court granted the parties’ request to continue the trial date to finalize settlement negotiations.

 

On January 09, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Enforce Settlement and Enter Judgment Against Defendant Pursuant to CCP 664.6.

                       

No opposition has been filed.

 

MOVING PARTY POSITION

 

Plaintiff prays for the Court to enforce the terms of the settlement and enter judgment against the Defendant. Plaintiff argues that because Defendant has failed to adhere to the terms of the Stipulation for the Conditional Entry of Judgment signed by the parties, Plaintiff is entitled to judgment under CCP 664.6. Plaintiff requests judgment be entered against Defendant for $42,675.08, which is the sum of the principal amount of $32,292.11, plus $469.00 in cost, $8,555.24 in interest, and $1,358.73 in attorney’s fees.

 

OPPOSITION

 

            No opposition has been filed.

 

REPLY

 

            No reply has been filed.

 

 

 

 

ANALYSIS

 

I.          Legal Standard

 Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 (“CCP § 664.6”) states: “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. 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, subd. (a) [emphasis added].) For purposes of the statute, “a writing is signed by a party if it is signed by any of the following [among other individuals]: (1) ¶ The party. (2) ¶ An attorney who represents the party.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6, subd. (b) [emphasis added].)

 

“On a motion to enforce, the court must determine whether the settlement agreement is valid and binding. [Citation.] The court assesses whether the material terms of the settlement were reasonably well-defined and certain, and whether the parties expressly acknowledged that they understood and agreed to be bound by those terms. [In re Marriage of Assemi (1994) 7 Cal.4th 896, 911.]” (Estate of Jones (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 948, 952.)

 

The court may interpret the terms and conditions of a 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).

 

II.        Discussion

 

A. Retention of Jurisdiction

           

“‘[V]oluntary dismissal of an action or special proceeding terminates the court’s jurisdiction over the matter.’ (Conservatorship of Martha P. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 857, 867.) ‘If requested by the parties,’ however, ‘the [trial] court may retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce [a] settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement.’ (§ 664.6, italics added.)” (Mesa RHF Partners, L.P. v. City of Los Angeles (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 913, 917.) “‘Because of its summary nature, strict compliance with the requirements of section 664.6 is prerequisite to invoking the power of the court to impose a settlement agreement.’” (Id. (quoting Sully-Miller Contracting Co. v. Gledson/Cashman Construction, Inc. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 30, 37).)

 

“A request for the trial court to retain jurisdiction under section 664.6 ‘must conform to the same three requirements which the Legislature and the courts have deemed necessary for section 664.6 enforcement of the settlement itself: the request must be made (1) during the pendency of the case, not after the case has been dismissed in its entirety, (2) by the parties themselves, and (3) either in a writing signed by the parties or orally before the court.’” (Id. (quoting Wackeen v. Malis (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 429, 440).) “The ‘request must be express, not implied from other language, and it must be clear and unambiguous.’” (Id. (quoting Wackeen, supra, 97 Cal.App.4th at 440).)

 

Here, the parties signed a stipulation containing the parties’ agreement for the Court to retain jurisdiction under Code of Civil Procedure §664.6 to enforce the terms of the Stipulation and enter judgment in the event of default. (Mot. Exh. A ¶ 3.) The Court notes that neither party moved to dismiss the suit pursuant to CCP 664.6 nor did the parties file notice that the parties had reached a settlement. Regardless, since the matter remains active, the Court still has jurisdiction over the case. Therefore, the Court proceeds to the merits of the instant motion.

 

B. Entry of Judgment

The Settlement Agreement (“Stipulation”) provides that the parties agree to settle the matter for a total sum of $44,243.76, of which $32,342.11 being the principal balance, $823.50 for court cost, $6,211.49 towards interest and $4,866.66 towards attorney’s fees. (Mot. Exh A ¶ 1.) Defendant committed to making monthly payments of $200.00 beginning on October 30, 2023, and continuing on the 30th of each month, until paid in full within five-years of the date of the first payment. (Id.)

Plaintiff provides the court with the declaration of its counsel who avers that to date Defendant has paid Plaintiff $50.00. (Alexander V. Hettena Decl. ¶5.) Counsel states that Defendant has defaulted on the terms of payment established under the Stipulation by failing to make monthly payments. (Id. ¶ 3.) Plaintiff requests for judgment to be entered against Defendant in the amount go $32,292.11 plus cost, interest, and attorney’s fees per the terms of the agreement. (Id. ¶ 5.)

The Court finds the Settlement Agreement valid and enforceable under CCP § 664.6.

Here, Plaintiff provides evidence that Defendant has not cured default after Plaintiff sent notice. (Id. ¶¶ 3, 5.) Plaintiff requests judgment be entered against Defendant for $42,675.08, which is the sum of the principal amount of $32,292.11, plus $469.00 in cost, $8,555.24 in interest, and $1,358.73 in attorney’s fees. Thus, since a valid and signed settlement agreement between the parties was breached, and the Court retains jurisdiction to enter judgment, the motion satisfies the requirements of CCP 664.6.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and Enter Judgment is GRANTED. Judgment is entered for Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of $42,675.08 for the following: principal amount of $32,292.11, plus $469.00 in cost, $8,555.24 in interest, and $1,358.73 in attorney’s fees.

 

III.       Conclusion

           

Plaintiff Salon Republic, LLC’s Motion to Enforce Settlement and Enter Judgment Against the Defendant Pursuant to CCP 664.6 is GRANTED.

 

Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in the TOTAL amount of $42,675.08

Moving party is ordered to give notice.