Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 23STCV15513, Date: 2025-04-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV15513    Hearing Date: April 21, 2025    Dept: 28

Having considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND 

On July 5, 2023, Plaintiff Maria Angelica Lcrotte (“Lcrotte”) filed an action against Defendants 1308 W 53rd, LLC and Does 1-20 for general negligence and premises liability.  (Case number 23STCV15513.) 

On August 29, 2024, Defendant 1308 W. 53rd St., LLC (“1308”) filed an answer. 

On March 18, 2025, 1308 filed a motion to enforce settlement agreement.  The motion was set for hearing on April 21, 2025.  On April 7, 2025, Lcrotte filed an opposition.  

Trial is scheduled for September 4, 2025. 

PARTIES’ REQUESTS 

1308 asks the Court to enforce a settlement agreement.

Lcrotte asks the Court to deny the motion. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, subdivision (a) provides in part: 

“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 the parties to the settlement agreement or their counsel stipulate in writing or orally before the court, the court may dismiss the case as to the settling parties without prejudice and 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).) 

In deciding motions made under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, courts “must determine whether the parties entered into a valid and binding settlement.”  (Kohn v. Jaymar-Ruby (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1530, 1533.)  On a motion to enforce a settlement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, courts have the power to decide disputed facts and to interpret the agreement.  (Fiore v. Alvord (1985) 182 Cal.App.3d 561, 566; see L. Edmon & C. Karnow, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (Rutter 2023) ¶¶ 12:977–12:978.5, pp. 12(ll)-139 to 12(ll)-140.) 

Courts may receive evidence, determine disputed facts including the terms the parties previously agreed on, and enter the terms of a settlement agreement as a judgment, but they may not create new material terms. (Osumi v. Sutton (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1355, 1360.) 

DISCUSSION 

A.   Case number 24STUD13233 

On October 22, 2024, Plaintiff Melina Bernecker (“Bernecker”) filed an unlawful detainer complaint against Defendants Angelica Crotte aka Maria Angelica Lcrotte, Arturo Lugo, Christian Crotte, and Does 1-10.  (Case number 24STUD13233.) 

On December 3, 2024, Defendants Angelica Crotte, Arturo Lugo, and Christian Crotte filed an answer. 

On January 23, 2025, the Court entered an Unlawful Detainer Stipulated Judgment which (1) awarded Bernecker possession of the premises at 1308 W. 53rd Street, Los Angeles, CA 90037, (2) forfeited the defendants’ rights under the lease or rental agreement, (3) awarded Bernecker $0.00 for past due rent, holdover damages, attorney’s fees, and costs, (4) allowed Bernecker to keep the defendants’ security deposits, (5) specified that a writ of possession “may issue forthwith with no final lockout prior to February 28, 2025,” and (6) required the defendants to vacate the premises by February 27, 2025.  The proof of service attached to the Unlawful Detainer Stipulated Judgment stated that the defendants were not represented by counsel. 

The defendants signed the Unlawful Detainer Stipulated Judgment on pages 2 and 3.  Page 4 (attachment one) is a Mutual Release Addendum, which states: 

“Mutual Release; Waiver of All Known and Unknown Claims. Except for those rights specifically created by this Agreement and except as may be herein specifically reserved in writing with respect to the subject of all of the Released Claims and all other matters pertaining to, in any way relating to and/or arising out of the Released Claims including the facts, circumstances or events alleged therein, the Parties and each of them, on their behalf and on behalf of all of their successors and assigns and all those now or later acting on his, her or their behalf, hereby mutually release and forever discharge the other Parties to this Agreement (including their attorneys, agents, insurers, servants, successors, heirs, executors, administrators and all other such persons, firms, corporations, associations or partnerships associated with them) from and against any and all claims. demands, causes of action, obligations as well as any and all damages, liabilities, losses, costs and/or expenses, including attorney's fees, of any kind or nature whatsoever, past or present, ascertained or unascertained, whether or not known, suspected, or now claimed. Each Party hereto therefore expressly waives any such rights or benefits available under § 1542 of the Civil Code of the State of Ca1ifornia which provides as follows: 

“ ‘A general release does not extend to claims that the creditor or releasing party does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release and that, if known by him or her would have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor or released party.’ 

“This Mutual Release specifically includes case number: 23STCV15513, filed on July 5, 2023 at 8:37 A.M.; MARIA ANGELICA LER01TE vs. 1308 W 53RD, LLC. . . .”  (Emphasis added.) 

B.   1308’s motion to enforce settlement agreement 

1308 moves to enforce in this case (STCV15513) the settlement agreement reached in case number 24STUD13233.  1308 asserts that the settlement agreement in case number 24STUD13233 required Lcrotte to dismiss her claims against 1308 in case number 23STCV135513, but Lcrotte has refused to do so.  1308 asks the Court to enforce the settlement agreement reached in case number 24STUD13233 by requiring Lcrotte to dismiss her claims against 1308 in case number 23STCV15513. 

In opposition, Lcrotte states that she did not see the “Mutual Release Addendum” when she signed the settlement agreement in case number 24STUD13233 and she never agreed to release her claims in case number 23STCV15513.  She also contends that her attorney in 23STCV15513 did not know about the settlement negotiations in 24STUD13233, even though the settlement agreement in 24STUD13233 purported to release Lcrotte's claims in 23STCV15513.  In addition, Lcrotte asserts that 1308’s motion is defective in several respects. 

The Court finds that Lcrotte has raised a serious issue concerning whether she knowingly agreed to dismiss her claims against 1308 in case number 23STCV15513 when she agreed to settle the claims against her in case number 24STUD13233.  The failure to include the attorney representing Lcrotte in case number 23STCV15503 in the negotiations leading to the settlement agreement in 24STUD13233 is particularly troubling.  Based on these concerns, the Court denies 1308’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court DENIES Defendant 1308 W. 53rd St., LLC's motion to enforce settlement agreement. 

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling. 

Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.