Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: SC128277, Date: 2022-10-20 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: SC128277 Hearing Date: October 20, 2022 Dept: R
The unopposed motion to enforce the settlement is
GRANTED. This case settled after the
first day of trial. The terms were
documented and the agreement comports with Code of Civil Procedure section
664.6. Specifically (with an exception
discussed below) the settlement was put on the record in open court and
transcribed and acceptance was confirmed by each party. Dreamhammer was supposed to pay plaintiff
Kantor $50,000 within a year. The case
would be held in abeyance during that time and, once the money was paid, it
would be dismissed with prejudice as to all defendants. If it was not paid as promised, then a
judgment would be entered against Dreamhammer for the $50,000 (or the unpaid
portion) plus interest and the case would be reinstated as to the remaining
defendants. There was a glitch when the
settlement was being recited, though.
One party, Paez, was not present and could not consent at the time. Paez owned 51% of PD holdings. However, counsel was confident that Paez
would consent. Accordingly, all agreed
that the settlement would be binding as to all parties, including Paez, if and
when he signed the transcript. And, in
fact, on August 3, 2021, Paez did sign the transcript. That is sufficient for the Court to conclude
that a binding agreement was formed and is enforceable under section 664.6.
According to Kantor, Dreamhammer has not paid anything at
all. No one has disputed that assertion.
In that light, the motion is GRANTED. Judgment will be entered against Dreamhammer
in the amount of $50,000. The case will
be re-instated as against the remaining defendants for whatever damages are
awarded after trial. The Court will set
a TSC to discuss procedural issues relating to the trial, including setting new
trial and final status conference dates.
The Court will sign the proposed judgment, lodged on September 8, 2022,
and to which no objection was filed.