Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 22STCV21045, Date: 2025-02-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV21045    Hearing Date: February 25, 2025    Dept: 6

CASE NAME:  Phyllis Brost, et al. v. Vitas Healthcare, et al. 

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and Enter Judgment as to Defendants Paradise Transportation and Funeral Services and Juan Reatiga 

TENTATIVE RULING 

The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to enforce settlement agreement as to Defendant Paradise Transportation and Funeral Services in the total amount of $16,129.57. The Court DENIES the motion as to Defendant Juan Reatiga. The Court directs Plaintiffs to submit a new proposed judgment for the Court’s review and signature. 

            Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order. 

BACKGROUND 

This case arises from the death of James Elmer Brost (Decedent) and the alleged mishandling of his corpse. On June 28, 2022, plaintiffs Phyllis Brost, Angelique Barnum, and James Jr.[1] (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed this action against defendants Vitas Healthcare (Vitas), Wiefels & Son, Inc. d/b/a All Caring Solutions, (All Caring Solutions), Michael Bobadilla (Bobadilla), Paradise Transportation and Funeral Services (Paradise), and Juan Reatiga (Reatiga) (collectively, Defendants), and Does 1 to 50. 

            On August 19, 2022, Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Complaint (FAC). On February 6, 2023, the Court sustained the demurrer of Vitas with leave to amend as to the First Amended Complaint, and continued the hearing on Defendant All Caring Solution’s demurrer for failure to meet and confer. 

            On March 6, 2023, Plaintiffs filed the Second Amended Complaint (SAC). On June 21, 2023, the Court overruled Vitas’ demurrer to the Third and Fourth Causes of Action of the SAC, but sustained with leave to amend as to the Fifth Cause of Action. The Court also sustained All Caring Solutions’ demurrer to the Fifth and Sixth Causes of Action of the SAC with leave to amend. 

            On July 17, 2023, Plaintiffs filed the operative Third Amended Complaint (TAC), alleging causes of action for negligence/wrongful death, negligence/survival, statutory violation of California’s Civil Elder Abuse/Neglect Protection Act (Wel. & Inst. Code § 15600, Et. Seq) – Survival, willful misconduct, negligent mishandling and wrongful retention of a corpse, and intentional mishandling and retention of a corpse. 

            On October 5, 2023, the Court sustained Vitas Healthcare’s demurrer to the Fifth Cause of Action of the TAC without leave to amend. 

            On November 11, 2023, All Caring Solutions filed a cross-complaint against Paradise, Reatiga, and Roes 1 through 10, alleging causes of action for equitable indemnity, implied indemnity, comparative indemnity, apportionment of fault, and contribution. On February 6, 2025, All Caring Solutions dismissed its cross-complaint without prejudice. 

On January 24, 2025, Plaintiffs moved to enforce the settlement agreement between Plaintiffs on the one hand and Paradise and Reatiga on the other. The motion is unopposed. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

“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).) 

“A party may file a motion or other document pertaining to the settlement, including an application for determination of good faith settlement, a motion for the reduction or determination of a lien, a petition related to the compromise of the claim of a minor or person with a disability, or, if the terms of a settlement are not performed, a motion based upon such terms. Responsive filings and related documents may also be filed.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6, subd. (f)(1).) 

DISCUSSION 

            Plaintiffs seek to enforce a settlement agreement dated October 25, 2024, against Defendants Paradise and Reatiga. Plaintiffs contend that Paradise and Reatiga have failed to pay the $15,000.00 they promised to pay within 30 days’ of full execution of the settlement agreement. Plaintiffs indicate that they gave Paradise and Reatiga an extension until January 10, 2025, to pay the $15,000.00, but they still did not pay. Plaintiffs therefore ask the Court to enter judgment against Paradise and Reatiga per Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. 

            The Court first notes that Plaintiffs, Paradise, and Reatiga executed the settlement agreement, and that it provides for this Court to retain jurisdiction to enforce it under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. (Denning Decl., Ex. A, ¶ 7.) But, the Court finds entry of judgment against Reatiga would be improper here, as the settlement agreement does not impose any payment obligations on Reatiga. (Denning Decl., Ex. A, ¶ B, subd. (1).) The only parties to the settlement agreement who have payment obligations are Vitas and Paradise. (Denning Decl., Ex. A, ¶ B, subd. (1).) Also, even though Reatiga appears to be a managing member of Paradise, that does not render him liable for the debts of Paradise. (Denning Decl., Ex. A, p. 7; Corp. Code, § 17703.04, subd. (a)(2).) Therefore, there is no monetary judgment to enter against Reatiga. 

            However, with respect to Paradise, the Court finds entry of judgment would be proper here. First, Paradise executed the settlement agreement. (Denning Decl., Ex. A, p. 7.) Second, Plaintiffs have presented evidence showing that Paradise has not paid the $15,000.00 as promised. (Denning Decl., ¶ 4.) Third, the Court construes the Defendants’ lack of opposition to this motion as a concession that Plaintiffs’ arguments are meritorious. (D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, fn. 4 [where nonmoving party fails to oppose a ground for a motion, "it is assumed that [nonmoving party] concedes" that ground].) The Court notes some ambiguity regarding when the settlement agreement became effective, as the copy of the settlement agreement provided with the motion does not contain any signatures from Vitas and it provides that the 30-day payment deadline is triggered upon full execution of the settlement agreement. (Denning Decl., Ex. A, ¶ B, subd. (1), p. 6.) But, the Court also notes Plaintiffs’ dismissal of Vitas with prejudice on January 29, 2025, which the Court infers as evidence that Vitas performed under the terms of the settlement agreement, and thereby triggered Paradise’s obligations to perform thereunder. (Request for Dismissal as to Vitas Healthcare (1/29/25).) 

            Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the motion as to Paradise and DENIES it as to Reatiga. 

            With respect to attorney fees, Plaintiffs correctly note that the settlement agreement provides for the recovery of attorney fees incurred in enforcing the settlement agreement. (Denning Decl., Ex. A, ¶ F.) But, the Court finds the amount requested here excessive. The Court will therefore GRANTS Plaintiffs’ request for attorney fees and costs in the reduced amount of $1,129.57, including 3.5 hours preparing the motion and appearing for the hearing, multiplied by the hourly rate of $300.00, plus the filing fee of $79.57. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (b)(3) [postage not recoverable as costs].) 

CONCLUSION 

The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to enforce settlement agreement as to Defendant Paradise Transportation and Funeral Services in the total amount of $16,129.57. The Court DENIES the motion as to Defendant Juan Reatiga. The Court directs Plaintiffs to submit a new proposed judgment for the Court’s review and signature. 

            Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.