Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 23WCUD01976, Date: 2024-09-18 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23WCUD01976 Hearing Date: September 18, 2024 Dept: 6
CASE NAME: Donlin Properties A General Partnership v. Precision Machine Work, Inc., a California Corporation
Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Unlawful Detainer Stipulation and Judgment
TENTATIVE RULING
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to enforce unlawful detainer stipulation and judgment. The Court will sign the proposed judgment.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.
BACKGROUND
This is a commercial unlawful detainer case. On September 15, 2023, plaintiff Donlin Properties A General Partnership (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendant Precision Machine Work, Inc., a California Corporation (Defendant) and Does 1 through 3, alleging the sole cause of action for unlawful detainer.
On May 1, 2024, Plaintiff moved to enforce the unlawful detainer stipulation and judgment. On September 5, 2024, Defendant opposed the motion. On September 11, 2024, Plaintiff replied.
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 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, subd. (a).)
“We note that even if the terms of the judgment could be extended, a court's power to make factual determinations under section 664.6 is generally limited to whether the parties entered into a valid and binding settlement agreement. [Citation.] The power would not appear to extend, at least under the facts of this case, to whether one party had breached the terms of the agreement. Judgment may be entered under section 664.6 whether the parties are complying with the terms of the agreement or whether they are not.” (Viejo Bancorp, Inc. v. Wood (1989) 217 Cal.App.3d 200, 209.)
REQUESTS FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s requests for judicial notice submitted with its moving papers. (Evid. Code § 452, subd. (d).) However, the Court takes judicial notice only as to “the existence, content and authenticity of public records and other specified documents”; it does not take judicial notice of the truth of the factual matters asserted in those documents. (Dominguez v. Bonta (2022) 87 Cal. App. 5th 389, 400.)
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff seeks to enforce the stipulation and judgment the parties entered into on December 13, 2023 (the Settlement). Plaintiff contends the Settlement provides that Defendant acknowledges owing Plaintiff $111,048.01 in past due rent, but that Plaintiff would accept $64,000.00 instead if Defendant made 16 monthly payments of $4,000.00 and vacated the subject property. Plaintiff then contends the Settlement provides Defendant would owe the full amount if Defendant failed to make any payments due, less any prior payments actually received. Plaintiff contends that although Defendant did vacate the subject property, Defendant did not make any payments as promised, and therefore owes Plaintiff the full amount of $111,048.01 in past due rent. Plaintiff further notes that the Settlement provides Defendant waived any right to challenge or appeal the stipulated judgment and that the case file would be unsealed if Defendant breached the terms of the Settlement.
In opposition, Defendant contends the Court lacks jurisdiction to enter a judgment that exceeds the monetary limitation within the complaint, and notes that the Court previously granted Defendant’s motion to set aside the judgment for this reason. Defendant contends this is a limited civil case, which limits the Court’s jurisdiction to $10,000.00, so the Court cannot enter a judgment greater than $10,000.00. Defendant also contends Plaintiff has not submitted any motion to reclassify this case from limited to unlimited, and that such time has now passed.
The Court finds that the parties have entered into a valid and binding settlement agreement. Plaintiff provided a copy of the December 13, 2023 stipulation and judgment with its moving papers, which provides for the Court’s retention of jurisdiction under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, subdivision (a), among other things. (Request for Judicial Notice (8/20/24), Ex. A (the Stipulation).) Both parties executed the Stipulation. (Id.) Defendant acknowledged the full $111,048.01 in past due rent owed to Plaintiff. (Id.) The Stipulation provides that Plaintiff is entitled to recover the full $111,048.01 in past due rent if Defendant failed to pay the $64,000.00 per the schedule set forth therein. (Id.; see also Red & White Distribution, LLC v. Osteroid Enterprises, LLC (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 582, 589 [“’it is permissible under [Civil Code] section 1671 for the parties to agree to a discount for timely payment of an admitted debt.’ [Citation.]”)
Moreover, although the Court set aside the money portion of the judgment on August 13, 2024, it also ordered that all other orders and findings made by the Court on December 13, 2023 remain fully effective. (Minute Order (8/13/24).) It did so because the money judgment was prematurely entered simultaneously with the judgment for possession, and because this action at that time was classified as limited civil, which created a jurisdictional limit of $10,000.00. (See Stratton v. Beck (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 483, 492.) However, the prior Court reclassified the case from limited civil to unlimited civil, thus remedying the prior jurisdictional defect. (See Notice of Reclassification (7/29/24).) Code of Civil Procedure section 403.040, subdivision (a) provides that “[t]he court, on its own motion, may reclassify a case at any time.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 403.040(a).) Accordingly, whether the deadline for Plaintiff to move for reclassification has passed is irrelevant, (see Code Civ. Proc., § 403.040, subd. (a)), and Plaintiff was free to again seek entry of judgment per the terms of the Settlement, (see Id., § 664.6, subd. (a)). The Court therefore now has jurisdiction to enter the money judgment per the terms of the Stipulation. (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6, subd. (a); see also Viejo Bancorp, Inc., supra, 217 Cal.App.3d at p. 209 fn. 4 [judgment may be entered regardless of compliance with the terms of the settlement agreement]; Stratton v. Beck, supra, 9 Cal.App.5th at p. 492 [limited civil case may be reclassified to unlimited civil to address jurisdictional issues].)
The Court finds that Defendant failed to make any of the payments agreed to in the Stipulation. (Wright Decl., ¶ 3.) The Court notes that Defendant’s Opposition does not dispute Plaintiff’s contention regarding his breach of the Stipulation.
Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the motion for entry of judgment in the amount of $111,048.01.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to enforce unlawful detainer stipulation and judgment. The Court will sign the proposed judgment.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.