Judge Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case Number: KC070042, Date: 2025-03-20 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: KC070042, Date: 2025-03-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: KC070042 Hearing Date: March 20, 2025 Dept: 6

CASE NAME: Bharat Patel, et al. v. Dr. Prakash Patel

Plaintiffs Bharat Patel and Dinesh Patel’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 and to Enter Judgment Against Prakash Patel and Hardika Patel

TENTATIVE RULING

The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion in part. The Court will amend the Amended Judgment per Code of Civil Procedure sections 128 and 187 to add $163,497.77 in damages to cover the additional liens Plaintiffs paid in clearing title to the subject property, $5,110.00 in attorney fees for enforcing the judgment thus far, $1,815.85 in costs for enforcing the judgment thus far, and $1,476.22 in attorney fees and costs for prevailing on this motion. The Court directs Plaintiffs to submit a Second Amended Judgment for the Court’s review and signature within 10 days of the Court’s order.

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

BACKGROUND

This is a real property dispute. On February 14, 2018, Plaintiffs Bharat Patel (Bharat) and Dinesh Patel (Dinesh) (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed this action (KC070042) against Dr. Prakash Patel and Does 1 through 10, alleging causes of action for breach of settlement agreement and fraud. On March 16, 2020, Prakash Patel (Prakash) and Hardika Patel (Hardika) (collectively, Defendants) filed a separate action (20STCV10801) against Bharat Patel, Dinesh Patel, and Does 1 through 100, alleging causes of action for voiding and rescission of first settlement agreement, voiding and rescission of second settlement agreement, voiding and rescission of third settlement agreement, fraud (misrepresentation), fraud (false promise), fraud (concealment), negligent misrepresentation, voiding and rescission of first settlement agreement (fraud), voiding and rescission of second settlement agreement (fraud), and voiding and rescission of third settlement agreement (fraud). The actions were later consolidated on June 23, 2020, with KC070042 being designated as the lead case.

On July 27, 2020, Bharat and Dinesh filed a cross-complaint against Prakash and Hardika. The current operative pleading is the Second Amended Cross-Complaint, filed on March 13, 2023, which alleges causes of action for breach of settlement agreement, fraud (misrepresentation), fraud (concealment), conspiracy to commit fraud, and declaratory relief.

On October 10, 2022, the Court entered summary judgment in favor of Bharat and Dinesh on Prakash and Hardika’s complaint.

On January 19, 2024, after a four-day non-jury trial, concurrent with a jury trial, the Court issued a statement of decision in favor of Plaintiffs.

On February 20, 2024, the Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiffs, with the caveat that Plaintiffs could file a motion for attorney fees, costs, and interest.

On May 28, 2024, the Court entered an amended judgment in favor of Plaintiffs.

On February 20, 2025, Plaintiffs moved to enforce settlement agreement per Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 and enter judgment against Defendants. On March 6, 2025, Defendants opposed the motion. On March 13, 2025, Plaintiffs 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 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).)

REQUESTS FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ requests for judicial notice. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).)

DISCUSSION

Summary of Arguments

Plaintiffs moves the Court to enter judgment against Defendants based on the November 9, 2018 settlement agreement (the Settlement Agreement) and May 28, 2024 amended judgment (the Amended Judgment). Plaintiffs ask the Court to find that Defendants are in breach of the Amended Judgment and Settlement Agreement, that the judgment be entered against Defendants in the amount of the additional liens paid by Plaintiffs, for pre and post-judgment interest accrued on the amended judgment and liens paid, and attorney fees and costs related to post-judgment proceedings.

Plaintiffs contend Defendants breached the Settlement Agreement and Amended Judgment by failing to comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Plaintiffs contend Defendants were required per the Amended Judgment to provide the subject property with clear title to Plaintiffs, and that Plaintiffs fulfilled their obligations to pay the balance of the Wells Fargo Loan, the Amalgamated Bank Loan, and $75,000.00 in tax liens. Plaintiffs contend they have also paid $54,043.96 in tax liens in excess of the $75,000.00 limit, a $4,770.16 lien from the Employment Development Department, a $4,683.65 lien from the Franchise Tax Board, and a $100,000.00 lien from Super 8 Worldwide, Inc., for a total of $163,497.77 due to Defendants’ failure to provide clear title.

Plaintiffs contend this Court already determined at trial that the Settlement Agreement is enforceable, and that Defendants breached the Settlement Agreement by failing to deliver clear title to the subject property. Plaintiffs contend the Settlement Agreement’s terms are sufficiently definite, as Defendants were required to convey title to the subject property with no liens other than the aforementioned bank loans, and that the Amended Judgment said Plaintiffs were not responsible for the payment of any other liens on the subject property. In addition to the amounts set forth above, Plaintiffs contend they are entitled to post-judgment interest in the amount of $21,714.92, and attorney fees and costs in the amount of $11,695.22.

In opposition, Defendants contend Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 is not proper for this motion because there is no longer any pending litigation or settlement, as a judgment has been entered. Defendants note that although the Settlement Agreement is attached to the Amended Judgment, it is only mentioned in connection with the Court’s finding that Plaintiffs are entitled to a 100% interest in the subject property. Defendants contend Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 does not apply in a civil action after a judgment has been entered and the time for appeal has passed per Walton v. Mueller (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 161 (Walton). Defendants contend Plaintiffs must rely on the law governing enforcement of judgments.

Analysis

The Court finds Defendants’ citation to Walton unavailing on multiple grounds, and in fact supports the motion. Walton does not hold that Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 is categorically inapplicable when a judgment has been entered. Rather, it states that, “[Code of Civil Procedure] section 664.6, by its plain and unambiguous terms, does not apply in an ordinary civil action after a judgment—unrelated to the alleged settlement and therefore containing no provision for continuing jurisdiction to enforce it—has been entered and has become final in the sense that the time for appeal has passed.” (Walton, supra, 180 Cal.App.4th at p. 172, italics added.) Thus, there may still be some instances in which Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 can apply even if there is a judgment, and this case is one of those instances.

Applying the aforementioned rule from Walton, the Court finds Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 is a proper basis for bringing this motion. First, the Settlement Agreement and Amended Judgment are related, as the Settlement Agreement formed the basis of this lawsuit, and is attached to and incorporated by reference into the Amended Judgment. (See Amended Judgment (5/28/24).) Second, the Amended Judgment expressly orders the parties to specifically perform the terms of the Settlement Agreement. (Amended Judgment (5/28/24), ¶ 1,) Third, the Settlement Agreement provides that it may be enforced per Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, thus the Amended Judgment contains a provision for the Court’s continuing jurisdiction. (Amended Judgment (5/28/24), Ex. 1, ¶ 12.) Fourth, the Settlement Agreement had been entered into and made a part of the Amended Judgment before the time to appeal the Amended Judgment had expired, and thus was entered into while the action was still pending. (See Amended Judgment (5/28/24); Walton, supra, 180 Cal.App.4th at p. 172.) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion was not improperly brought under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, and the Court has jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement via the Amended Judgment.

Further, even if section 664.6 is not the proper statute, the Court has the authority under Code of Civil Procedure section 128 to take reasonable steps to enforce its judgment. (See Blueberry Properties, LLC v. Chow (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 1017 [affirming the trial court's appointment of an elisor to execute escrow documents on behalf of a party who refused to do so; this appointment was not until after judgment had been entered].) The Second District Court of Appeal found that the trial court has inherent authority under Code of Civil Procedure section 128 to take appropriate steps to effectuate its judgment and orders. (Blueberry, supra, 230 Cal. App.4th at pp. 1020-1022.) " 'The jurisdiction of a court of equity to enforce its decrees is coextensive with its jurisdiction to determine the rights of the parties, and it has power to enforce its decrees as a necessary incident to its jurisdiction. Except where the decree is self-executing, jurisdiction of the cause continues for this purpose, or leave may be expressly reserved to reinstate the cause for the purpose of enforcing the decree, or to make such further orders as may be necessary.' " (Dawson v. East Side Union High School Dist. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 998, 1044, citing Day v. Sharp (1975) 50 Cal. App. 3d 904, 912, quoting Klinker v. Klinker (1955) 132 Cal.App.2d 687, 694.) Here, the Amended Judgment is not self-executing and includes an award of specific performance of the Settlement Agreement. If Defendants refuse to comply with the order of specific performance, Plaintiffs can seek to enforce the Amended Judgment. (See Stump's Market, Inc. v. Plaza de Santa Fe Limited, LLC (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 882, 892.) Moreover, although not set forth in specific terms, the Court retained jurisdiction to enforce the judgment as the Court provided for the appointment of an elisor if Defendants refused to sign the conveyance documents. Thus, the Court has inherent and express jurisdiction to make orders to enforce its valid judgment. (Id. at p. 893 [“If [defendant] refuses to follow the judgment in the future, nothing in this opinion should be read as limiting the superior court from taking any and all necessary steps and ordering the proper injunctive relief, enforcing specific performance, and if necessary, retaining jurisdiction to ensure [defendant's] compliance"].)

As for whether Defendants failed to comply with the terms of the Amended Judgment, Plaintiffs correctly note that their only payment obligations involved the Amalgamated Bank Loan, the Wells Fargo Loan, and up to $75,000.00 in tax liens. (Amended Judgment (5/28/24), ¶¶ 2, 9.) Plaintiffs also correctly note that Defendants bore the responsibility of providing title to the subject property with no other liens. (Amended Judgment (5/28/24), ¶ 2.) The Court further notes that Defendants’ opposition does not dispute Defendants’ failures to resolve the aforementioned liens on the subject property, which the Court construes 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].)

However, the Court notes some issues with Plaintiffs’ request for entry of another judgment against Defendants, as the Court is bound by the “one-final-judgment rule,” which provides that only one final judgment may be entered in a single action. (Cuevas v. Truline Corp. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 56, 60.) The Court already entered the Amended Judgment in this action on May 28, 2024, and cannot enter another separate judgment. (See ibid.; Amended Judgment (5/28/24).) The Court also notes a lack of guidance from the decision in Walton and any other authority regarding what the trial court should do when the judgment is related to the settlement and provides for the court’s continuing jurisdiction. (See Walton, supra, 180 Cal.App.4th at p. 172.) Given the Court’s continuing jurisdiction as set forth above, it appears to the Court that the solution here is to further amend the judgment to add the $163,497.77 in additional liens incurred due to Defendants’ failure to resolve the various liens on the subject property per the Amended Judgment. (Amended Judgment (5/28/24), Ex. 1, ¶ 12; Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6; see id., § 187 [“if the course of proceeding be not specifically pointed out by this Code or the statute, any suitable process or mode of proceeding may be adopted which may appear most conformable to the spirit of this Code”].)

With respect to attorney fees and costs, Plaintiffs are entitled to attorney fees and costs incurred in connection with enforcing the judgment and in connection with this motion. (Amended Judgment (5/28/24), Ex. 1, ¶ 12; Civ. Code, § 1717, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 685.040; id., 1033.5, subds. (a)(1)(A), (a)(1)(B).) The Court also again notes Defendants’ lack of opposition on this issue. (Premier Medical Management Systems, Inc. v. California Ins. Guarantee Assn. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 550, 564 [in challenging attorney fees, burden falls on challenging party to identify specific items to be challenged with citations to arguments and evidence].) However, the Court finds that some of the attorney’s fees and costs sought were related to the motion for attorney’s fees and not to enforcement of the judgment. The Court therefore reduces the enforcement fees and costs by $2,695.00 and $73.15, respectively. Accordingly, the Court finds the enforcement fees of $5,110.00 and enforcement costs of $1,815.85 were reasonable and necessary costs of enforcing the judgment. (Manukyan Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. C.) With respect to the fees and costs for this motion, the Court awards Plaintiffs $1,476.22 for successfully bringing this motion, comprised of 3.0 hours preparing the motion, 1.0 hour for appearing at the hearing on the motion, for a total of 4.0 hours multiplied the hourly rate of $350.00, plus $76.22 for the filing fees. (See Manukyan Decl., ¶ 7; see also 569 E. Cnty. Boulevard LLC v. Backcountry Against the Dump, Inc. (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 426, 436-437 [courts are in best position to determine value of attorney services, including hourly rates].)

But, the Court takes issue with Plaintiffs’ request for post-judgment interest to be added to the Amended Judgment. Plaintiffs does not cite any authority to add post-judgment interest to the principal amount of the judgment at this stage. While interest accrues on a money judgment on the date of entry of judgment, the Court is not inclined to add post-judgment interest to the principal only a few months after the judgment was entered as this would allow for a double recovery of post-judgment interest. (See Code of Civil Procedure § 685.010(a).) Plaintiffs’ request to add post-judgment interest to the principal amount of the judgment is denied, but Plaintiffs may recover post-judgment interest as allowed by law.

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion in part. The Court will amend the Amended Judgment to add $163,497.77 in damages to cover the additional liens Plaintiffs paid in clearing title to the subject property, $5,110.00 in attorney fees for enforcing the judgment thus far, $1,815.85 in costs for enforcing the judgment thus far, and $1,476.22 in attorney fees and costs for prevailing on this motion. The Court directs Plaintiffs to submit a Second Amended Judgment for the Court’s review and signature.

CONCLUSION

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