Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 24NWCV00210, Date: 2024-11-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24NWCV00210    Hearing Date: November 14, 2024    Dept: C

GARCIA v. BEST FOR YOU MOVING

CASE NO.:  24NWCV00210

HEARING:  11/14/24

#6

Defendant ARTUR SHAKHNAZAROV’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement against Defendant OVERSEAS FOOD DISTRIBUTION, LLC is DENIED. 

Moving Party to give notice.

This breach of lease action was filed on January 22, 2024.

On July 24, 2024, Plaintiff/Landlord ABIMAEL G. GARCIA and Defendant/Tenant BEST FOR YOU MOVING (by Artur Shakhnazarov) and Defendant ARTUR SHAKHNAZAROV (“Defendant”) executed a Settlement Agreement.

A Notice of Settlement was FILED on August 22, 2024, and the Court’s August 22, 2024 Minute Order states: “The Court will retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement.” (08/22/24 M.O.)

Defendant now moves for an order to enforce the terms of the parties’ July 17, 2024 mediation, wherein the parties apparently agreed that escrow proceeds being held would be apportioned by the parties.

In Opposition, Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s Motion should be denied because the July 24, 2024 Settlement Agreement fully executed by the parties required that the settlement amount of $89,345.68 be paid to Plaintiff by no later than July 31, 2024. Plaintiff expressly conditioned the release of Defendants on the payment of the settlement amount by July 31, 2024.

“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.” (emphasis added.) (CCP. §664.6.) Although a judge hearing a section 664.6 motion may receive evidence, determine disputed facts, and enter the terms of a settlement agreement as a judgment, nothing in section 664.6 authorizes a judge to create the 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.) A settlement agreement is interpreted according to the same principles as any other written agreement (Leeman v. Adams Extract & Spice, LLC (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 1367, 1374.) It must be interpreted to give effect to the mutual intent of the parties as it existed at the time, insofar as that intent can be ascertained and is lawful. (Id.)

Under Section 664.6, the Court must be primarily guided by the terms of the operative settlement agreement. Here, the parties agreed to the following terms: “In consideration of the execution of this Agreement, the Tenant Parties shall pay Landlord the amount of $89,345.68… in immediately available funds by wire transfer, payable on or before July 31, 2024 (the ‘Payment Date’). In the event the Settlement Amount is not paid on or before the Payment Date, the release of the Tenant Parties shall be null and void.” (Shakhnazarov Decl., ¶ 8, Ex. A.)

Here, Defendant is asking the Court to enforce the terms agreed to during a July 17, 2024 mediation. However, the apparent terms of the July 17, 2024 mediation are not properly before this Court. Pursuant to CCP §664.6, the Court has authority to enforce the terms of a settlement agreement only when the agreement is sufficiently definitive to enable the trial court to give it an exact meaning. (Weddington v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 812.) The July 24, 2024 Settlement Agreement fully executed by the parties and attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration of Artur Shakhnazarov requires Defendant to have paid $89,345.68 on or before July 31, 2024. It is undisputed that Defendant failed to comply with this express term of the Settlement Agreement.

Defendant’s request falls outside the scope of the parties’ Settlement Agreement.

The Motion is DENIED.