Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: BC711347, Date: 2024-03-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC711347    Hearing Date: March 28, 2024    Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian

Department 27

Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date:                     3/28/2024 at 1:30 p.m.

Case No./Name.:         BC711347 BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES VS EDWIN FLORES

Motion Name:                MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT¿ 

Moving Party:                 Plaintiff

Responding Party:      Defendants Edwin Flores and Miledi Flores

Notice:                               Sufficient

Ruling:                                   PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT IS GRANTED IN PART

Factual Background

On June 22, 2018, Plaintiff filed the present auto accident case against Defendants Edwin Flores and Miledi Flores. On February 4, 2020, the Parties entered into a settlement pursuant to a Stipulation for Entry of Judgment and Installment. The settlement required Defendants to pay Plaintiff a sum of $20,000.00 in installment payments, beginning on March 6, 2020. The Court also retained jurisdiction over this matter to enforce the terms of the settlement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. On March 5, 2020, the Court dismissed this matter without prejudice. So Far, Defendants have made payments totaling $9,900.00. However, Defendants have failed to make any of the payments after July 6, 2023. Plaintiff now requests that Judgment be entered against Defendants in the sum amount of $15,950.56.

Legal Standard

CCP § 664.6 states: “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.”

Strict compliance with the statutory requirements is necessary before a court can enforce a settlement agreement under this statute.¿ (Sully-Miller Contracting Co. v. Gledson/Cashman Construction, Inc. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 30, 37.)¿ To enforce a written settlement agreement under CCP section 664.6, the following three elements must be met: (1) the parties must have come to a meeting of the minds on all material points; (2) there must be a writing that contains the material terms of the agreement; and (3) the writing must be signed by the parties.¿ (Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 797-98.)

CCP § 664.6 “require[s] 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.”  (J.B.B. Investment Partners, Ltd. v. Fair (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 974, 985.)  CCP § 664.6’s “requirement of a ‘writing signed by the parties’ must be read to apply to all parties bringing the section 664.6 motion and against whom the motion is directed.”  (Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 299, 306; see Sully-Miller Contracting Co. v. Gledson/Cashman Const., Inc. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 30, 35-37 [“A written settlement agreement is not enforceable under section 664.6 unless it is signed by all of the parties to the agreement, not merely the parties against whom the agreement is sought to be enforced.”].)  “A procedure in which a settlement is evidenced by one writing signed by both sides minimizes the possibility of … dispute[s] and legitimizes the summary nature of the section 664.6 procedure.”  (Robertson v. Chen (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1290, 1293.)

Analysis

The Court reviewed the settlement agreement and finds that there was a meeting of the minds between the settling parties, wherein Defendants Edwin Flores and Miledi Flores agreed to pay $20,000.00 according to a settlement plan over five years in exchange for the release of the claims and dismissal with prejudice upon completion of the plan. The terms were put in writing, with signatures from the Defendants and an authorized representative for Plaintiff. The requirements to enforce the settlement agreement under CCP § 664.6 have been met.

Defendants also do not oppose the present motion.

Plaintiff requests $15,959.56 based on an unpaid principal of $10,100.00, interest of $5,625.56, and court costs of $225.00, citing Section 5 of the stipulation as the basis for both interest and costs. Upon examination, Section 5 authorizes only costs but does not provide for interest. Consequently, Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED in part, and judgment is to be entered against Defendants, jointly and severally, for the total amount of $10,325.00.  Plaintiff is to lodge an appropriate judgment for court signature within 5 court days.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling,¿the party must send an email to the court at¿sscdept27@lacourt.org¿with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.¿ The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.

Unless¿all¿parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.¿ You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.

If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.¿ After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.