Judge Mark E. Windham, Case Number: 21STLC00413, Date: 2023-09-28 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 21STLC00413, Date: 2023-09-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STLC00413 Hearing Date: September 28, 2023 Dept: 26

City of Los Angeles v. 3132 East Pico, LLC, et al

VACATE DISMISSAL AND ENTER JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO STIPULATION

(CCP § 664.6)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Motion of Plaintiff City of Los Angeles, acting by and through the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, to Enforce Settlement Agreement is GRANTED. JUDGMENT TO BE ENTERED IN PLAINTIFF’S FAVOR AND AGAINST DEFENDANT 3132 EAST PICO LLC AKA LLC 3132 EAST PICO IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,985.50 PRINCIPAL PLUS 18 PERCENT INTEREST PER ANNUM STARTING ON JUNE 2, 2021.

ANALYSIS:

On January 14, 2021, Plaintiff City of Los Angeles, acting by and through the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (“Plaintiff”) filed this action for common counts against Defendant 3132 East Pico LLC aka LLC 3132 East Pico (“Defendant”). On May 5, 2021, Plaintiff filed a copy of the parties’ stipulated settlement agreement.

On August 9, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Entry of Judgment Pursuant to Stipulated Settlement. To date, no opposition has been filed.

Legal Standard

The instant motion is brought under Code of Civil Procedure, section 664.6, which states in relevant part:

If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside 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).) Prior to January 1, 2021, “parties” under section 664.6 meant the litigants themselves, not their attorneys. (Levy v. Superior Court (1995) 10 Cal.4th 578, 586.) The current statute provides that “parties” includes “an attorney who represents the party” and an insurer’s agent. (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6, subd. (b).) The settlement must include the signatures of the parties seeking to enforce the agreement, and against whom enforcement is sought. (J.B.B. Investment Partners, Ltd. v. Fair (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 974, 985.) Plaintiff has demonstrated the settlement agreement complies with the statutory requirements set forth above as it was signed by both parties and Plaintiff’s attorneys. (Motion, Georgoulis Decl., Exh. A, p. 7.)

Furthermore, the request for retention of jurisdiction must be made in writing, by the parties, before the action is dismissed for the Court’s retention of jurisdiction to conform to the statutory language. (Wackeen v. Malis (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 429, 433 [“If, after a suit has been dismissed, a party brings a section 664.6 motion for a judgment on a settlement agreement but cannot present to the court a request for retention of jurisdiction that meets all of these requirements, then enforcement of the agreement must be left to a separate lawsuit.”].) The parties’ request for retention of jurisdiction complies with these requirements because it was made in writing to the Court before the action was dismissed. (Motion, Georgoulis Decl., Exh. A, ¶8F.)

The settlement provides that Defendant would pay Plaintiff $8,742.80 in monthly payments starting on April 1, 2021. (Id. at Exh. A, ¶2.) The settlement agreement also provides that upon Defendant’s default, Plaintiff may seek judgment in the settlement amount, less any monies paid. (Id. at Exh. A, ¶4.) Payments of $2,757.30 were made towards the settlement, after which Defendant defaulted. (Id. at ¶8 and Exh. 2.) Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff is entitled to entry of judgment against Defendant in the amount of $5,985.50 principal ($8,742.80 - $2,757.30) and 18 percent interest per annum starting on June 2, 2021. (Id. at Exh. A, ¶4.)

Conclusion

Motion of Plaintiff City of Los Angeles, acting by and through the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, to Enforce Settlement Agreement is GRANTED. JUDGMENT TO BE ENTERED IN PLAINTIFF’S FAVOR AND AGAINST DEFENDANT 3132 EAST PICO LLC A.K.A. LLC 3132 EAST PICO IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,985.50 PRINCIPAL PLUS 18 PERCENT INTEREST PER ANNUM STARTING ON JUNE 2, 2021.

Moving party to give notice.