Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 22SMCV01020, Date: 2023-05-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV01020    Hearing Date: May 17, 2023    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           Abott v. Imperial Beverages Corporation

CASE NO.:                22SMCV01020

MOTION:                  Motion to enter judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6

HEARING DATE:   5/18/2023

Legal Standard

As set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6:

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.

“Because of its summary nature, strict compliance with the requirements of section 664.6 is prerequisite to invoking the power of the court to impose a settlement agreement.” (Sully-Miller Contracting Co. v. Gledson/Cashman Construction, Inc. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 30, 37; Critzer v. Enos (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1262.) In ruling on a motion under section 664.6, the trial judge may receive oral testimony, or may determine the motion upon declarations alone. (Corkland v. Boscoe (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 989, 994.) Where the agreement was reached at a court hearing, the court can resolve the dispute on the basis of its own notes or recollection of what was agreed to (as well as any transcripts of the proceedings). (Richardson v. Richardson (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 91, 97.)

Analysis

Plaintiff Megan Abbott moves to enter judgment pursuant to a fully-executed binding settlement agreement between Plaintiff and Defendants East Imperial beverages Corporation and Anthony Burt.

On February 6, 2023, and February 7, 2023, Plaintiff and Defendants executed a written settlement agreement which provided a release of all claims. (Yadegaran Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. 1.) The agreement provided that Defendants were required to deliver a $40,000.00 payment to plaintiff’s counsel by check no later than February 24, 2023. (Id.) Further, the agreement had an enforcement provision pursuant to CCP § 664.6, stipulating to this Court’s jurisdiction for enforcement, and that the prevailing party seeking performance would be reimbursed reasonable attorneys’ fees. The agreement was signed by all parties to this action.

Plaintiff thus satisfies the prerequisites to enter judgment pursuant to CCP section 664.6. Plaintiff presents a valid settlement agreement, signed by the parties, which provides for enforcement via section 664.6. (Yadegaran Decl., ¶¶4, 39.) Moreover, the instant motion is unopposed.

Further, Plaintiff is entitled to attorneys’ fees for enforcing the settlement pursuant to the Agreement. Plaintiff claims $7,945.32 in fees associated with enforcing this settlement. (See Yadegaran Decl., ¶¶ 37-44; Ozhekim Decl., ¶¶ 7-15.) This includes fees drafting the ex parte application to seal, the instant moving papers, an anticipated reply, and attending the hearing, but not fees on negotiating payment. However, as there was no opposition, there was no need to reply or review any opposition. Thus, the Court will discount fees associated with attorney time allocated to the opposition and reply briefs. The Court therefore finds that a reasonable fee in this matter would be $5,672.32, inclusive of costs.

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED. Judgment will be entered in the amount of $45,672.32 against Defendants, jointly and severally. Plaintiff is ordered to provide a proposed judgment consistent with the settlement agreement and this ruling.