Judge: Martha K. Gooding, Case: 19-01090739, Date: 2023-07-31 Tentative Ruling

Motion to Enforce Settlement – GRANTED

The unopposed Motion by Plaintiff Richard Salinas (“Plaintiff”) to Enforce Settlement is GRANTED.

The relevant Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”) between Plaintiff and Defendants Vu Truong and Christian Williams (collectively, “Defendants”) includes language expressly stating the Agreement may be enforced pursuant to section 664.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”). (Declaration of Richard Salinas [“Salinas Decl.”] Exh. A [Settlement Agreement] at §5).

In addition, the parties expressly stipulated the Court retains jurisdiction pursuant to CCP section 664.6, “even after dismissal of the action.” (Stipulation dated September 11, 2020 [ROA No. 76]).

The Court issued an order consistent with the paraties’ stipulation on January 29, 2021. (ROA No. 102). Thus, the Court concludes it has jurisdiction to hear this motion. (Wackeen v. Malis (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 429, 433).

There appears to be no dispute that Plaintiff and Defendants entered into a Settlement Agreement, in which Defendants agreed to pay Plaintiff $15,000. (Salinas Decl. ¶3 and Exh. A at §2). The Agreement provides for an initial payment of $5,000, followed by monthly payments in the amount of $333.00. (Id.). The Agreement provides that a 10% late fee applies to any payment not paid within 5 days of the due date. (Id.) Finally, the Agreement includes a provision that “[a]ny Party that is the prevailing Party in enforcing this Agreement shall be entitled to attorney fees and costs of the enforcement.” (Id. at §5). In support of this Motion, Plaintiff offers a Declaration, in which he states that he received the initial $5,000.00 payment contemplated by the Agreement and also received the required monthly payments through September 2021; however, Defendants defaulted in October 2021. (Salinas Decl. ¶¶4-5).

Plaintiff previously filed a similar Motion that the Court heard on 10/17/22. (ROA No. 126) The Court denied the Motion without prejudice to refiling once the entire obligation became due because the Agreement failed to provide that, in event of a default, the entire amount owed immediately becomes due. (See id.)

Per the Agreement, the final payment was due on March 1, 2023.  Plaintiff filed this Motion after that date, on 4/5/23.

Now that the full amount of the Settlement is due and owing, Plaintiff brings this Motion to enforce the settlement and to obtain a judgment against Defendants for the remaining value of the settlement. (Salinas Decl. ¶ 6.) Each missed payment is $333.00, plus a 10% late fee of $33.30 for a total of $366.30. (Salinas Decl. ¶ 7.)  Defendants missed a total of eighteen (18) payments. (Id.) This results in $5,994 principal due and owing plus $599.40 in late fees for a total of $6,593.40 due and owing to Plaintiff. (Id.)

As a result of Defendant’s breach of the settlement agreement, Plaintiff has incurred attorney’s fees in the amount of $3,906.50 to bring this Motion, plus costs of $60.00 for filing, all of which the Court finds reasonable. (See Lewis Decl. ¶ 6.)

Thus, the Motion is granted.

Plaintiff is ordered to submit a proposed judgment consistent with this order within 7 days.

Plaintiff is also ordered to give notice of this ruling.