Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 19NWCV00849, Date: 2024-07-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19NWCV00849    Hearing Date: July 16, 2024    Dept: C

FC Marketplace, LLC vs HKS Food Inc., et al

Case No.: 19NWCV00849

Hearing Date: July 16, 2024 @ 9:30 a.m.

#1

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff FC Marketplace’s unopposed motion to enforce settlement and for entry of judgment is GRANTED.

Plaintiff to give notice.

Background

This lawsuit involves a loan made by Plaintiff FC Marketplace, LLC (“Plaintiff”) to Defendants HKS Food Inc. (“HKS”) and David Park as Guarantor (“Park”) (collectively “Defendants”). The operative Complaint, filed on November 6, 2019, brings causes of action for: (1) Open Book Account; (2) Account Stated; (3) Reasonable Value of Goods/Services Received/Funds Provided; (4) Agreement; (5) Promissory Note; (6) Personal Guarantee; and (7) Unjust Enrichment.

On January 14, 2022, the parties entered into a stipulated judgment which provides in relevant part:

·        A one-time payment of $30,000.00 on February 10, 2022

·        Monthly payments of $1,445.62 from March 10, 2022 to January 10, 2027.

·        “If any payment is not made timely, this stipulation will be treated as being in default. Upon default, Plaintiff shall give written notice of the default by email to Frederick Lee, esq. Defendant has ten (10) days from the date written notice was given to cure any said default. If the default is not cured after 10 days, Plaintiff is entitled to enter judgment in the amount of $147,983.57 minus any payments made by the Defendant, and may thereafter enforce said judgment for the full balance due.”

·        The Court will retain jurisdiction of the action until the judgment is fully complied with or until further order of the Court.

Plaintiff moves to enforce settlement pursuant to CCP § 664.6 based upon Defendants’ failure to make payments under the agreement. 

As of July 12, 2024, the motion is unopposed.

Legal Standard

“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.)

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.)  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].) 

Discussion

Plaintiff contends that Defendants have failed to comply with specific provisions of the settlement agreement that require them to make monthly payments of $1,445.62. Plaintiff contends that Defendants failed to make the September 10, 2022 payment.  They also failed to pay within 10 days of receiving notice of late payment. 

The Court finds that Defendants have breached the terms of the Stipulated Judgment by failing to make the requisite monthly payments.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to enforce settlement pursuant to C.C.P § 664.6 is GRANTED.  Judgment is to be entered against Defendants and in favor of Plaintiff in the amount of $147,983.57, less any payments made by Defendants.