Judge: Martha K. Gooding, Case: 2020-01166714, Date: 2022-11-07 Tentative Ruling

1) Motion to Enforce Settlement

2) Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal on Settled Case

The unopposed Motion by Plaintiff Yong Haw Nam (“Plaintiff”) to Enforce Settlement Agreement is GRANTED.

Plaintiff moves, under Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 664.6, for enforcement of the parties’ settlement agreement and for entry of judgment as provided for in the agreement. Plaintiff contends he is entitled to entry of judgment against Defendants Thornton Yachts, Inc. and Michael Thornton (“Defendants”), jointly and severally, for $1,000,000.

Section 664.6 provides, in pertinent 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.” (CCP § 664.6(a).)

Plaintiff has met his burden of showing that he entered into a written settlement agreement with Defendants for the settlement of his claims. (Marshall Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. 1.) The Settlement Agreement provides, among other terms, that “[o]n or before April 29, 2022, Thornton Yachts and Michael [defined to mean “Michael Thornton”], jointly and severally, agree to pay to Nam the sum of Seven Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($750,000) . . .” (Settlement Agreement at p. 2, § 1.b.) The Settlement Agreement further provides that, “[i]n the event that Thornton Yachts and/or Michael Thornton does not pay and deliver to Nam the foregoing Settlement Payment of Seven Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($750,000) in full and in good funds, on or before April 29, 2022, Nam shall have the right to file the Stipulation for Judgment with the Court and to obtain Judgment thereon, upon written notice to Thornton Yachts’ or Michael’s attorney.” (Settlement Agreement at p. 2, § 1.d, emphasis added.) The Stipulation for Judgment provides that Plaintiff “shall have judgment,” against Defendants,” “in the principal sum of ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000).” (ROA #148.)

Plaintiff has submitted evidence that Defendants did not timely make the $750,000 payment. (Marshall Decl. ¶ 7.) Plaintiff’s counsel gave written notice to Defendants’ counsel, on 5/6/22, that the Stipulation had been sent to the Court for filing. (Id. ¶ 12, Exh. 8.) However, no further communication was received. Plaintiff’s counsel attests that, to his knowledge, “Defendants have paid nothing pursuant to the express terms of the Settlement Agreement.” (Id. ¶ 13.)

Defendants have not opposed the motion and do not otherwise deny that Plaintiff is entitled to judgment pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

Plaintiff shall submit a proposed Judgment for the Court’s review (including a version in Word format) and give notice of the ruling.