Judge Mark E. Windham, Case Number: 21STLC02421, Date: 2023-12-13 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 21STLC02421, Date: 2023-12-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STLC02421 Hearing Date: December 13, 2023 Dept: 26

Thomas Boule v. Luxury Meetings, Inc., et al.

MOTION FOR ORDER TO ENTER STIPULATION FOR JUDGMENT

(CCP § 664.6)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Thomas Boule’s Motion for Order to Enter Stipulation for Judgment is GRANTED. JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF IN THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF $0.00. ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS MAY BE SOUGHT PURSUANT TO CAL. RULES OF COURT RULES 3.1700 AND 3.1702.

ANALYSIS:

On March 25, 2021, Plaintiff Thomas Boule (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendant Luxury Meetings, Inc., (“Defendant”) for breach of written guaranty agreement, breach of written agreement, and unjust enrichment. On January 24, 2022, Plaintiff filed an Amendment to Complaint, adding Defendant Jacob Ahrens (“Ahrens”) as Defendant Doe 1.

A non-jury trial was scheduled for September 22, 2022. On September 22, 2022, the Court noted that no appearances were entered for Plaintiff or Defendants and dismissed the Complaint without prejudice. (Minute Order, 09/22/22.)

On March 13, 2023, the Court denied Plaintiff’s first Motion to Set Aside Dismissal and Enter Stipulation for Civil Judgment. (Minute Order, 03/13/23.) On May 3, 2023, Plaintiff filed another Motion to Set Aside Dismissal and Enter Stipulation for Civil Judgment (“Motion”). The Court granted Plaintiff’s request to vacate the dismissal entered on September 22, 2022. (Minute Order, 05/25/23.) However, the Court denied Plaintiff’s request to enter the stipulation for civil judgment because the stipulation and settlement agreement were not signed by Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s representative. (Ibid.)

On June 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Enter Stipulation for Civil Judgment (“Motion”). On August 22, 2023, the Court issued a minute order continuing the hearing to October 4, 2023, pursuant to Plaintiff’s request because Defendant recently paid the principal amount due to Plaintiff in this action and the parties are currently negotiating additional fees due. The Court ordered any additional declaration/further briefing to be filed at least 10-days prior to the continued hearing date. (Minute Order, 08/22/23.)

At the hearing on October 4, 2023, the case was transferred to Department 26 of the Spring Street Courthouse and the hearing on the Motion was continued to December 13, 2023. (Minute Order, 10/04/23.) Plaintiff filed a supplemental declaration on September 29, 2023.

Discussion

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 because it was signed by both parties and their attorneys. (Motion, Supp. Emanuel Decl., Exh. A, p. 6.)

The settlement provides that Defendant would pay Plaintiff $21,250.00 by May 20, 2022. (Id. at ¶3.) The settlement agreement also provides that upon Defendant’s default, Plaintiff would seek judgment in the settlement amount. (Ibid.) Although Defendant defaulted in its payment by May 20, 2022, Defendant paid the principal balance on or around August 18, 2023. (Id. at ¶4.) Plaintiff now requests an order allowing it to move for the attorney’s fees and costs incurred in this action pursuant to section XV of the settlement agreement. (Motion, Emanuel Decl., Exh. A, § XV.)

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff is entitled to entry of judgment against Defendant in the principal amount of $0.00, plus attorney’s fees and costs according to proof. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.1700 and 3.1702.)

Conclusion

Moving party to give notice.