Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 19STCV17195, Date: 2023-05-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV17195    Hearing Date: May 16, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: May 16, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Enforce Settlement

Moving Party: Defendants Lynda Medof Levin, individually and as trustee of the Levin Trust Agreement Dated June 7 1994 and as trustee of the Sydney Medof Trust, Spencer Howard Medof, a/k/a Spencer Medof, Steven Howard Medof a/k/a Steve Medof a/k/a Steven Medof, individually and as trustee of the Sydney Medof Trust, 1009 North Sweetzer LLC, Medof Family Investments LLC, Medof Family Limited Partnership, Anne Barthelme a/k/a Anna Barthleme

Responding Party: Plaintiff Nicolle DeSanto

T/R:     DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

DEFENDANTS TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at¿SMCdept54@lacourt.org¿with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

The Court considers the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND

            This is a landlord tenant action. On May 17, 2019, Plaintiff Nicolle DeSanto sued Defendants, alleging that since she moved into the unit owned and/or managed by Defendants in 1994, the unit has been uninhabitable, and Defendants have failed to repair several issues, such as water damage, mold, and gas leaks.

ANALYSIS

“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.) 

Defendants move to enforce the settlement agreement executed by the parties on March 1, 2023. The agreement provides, in relevant part,

The terms of this Agreement are as follows: Defendants and/or their insurer(s) will pay plaintiff Nicolle Desanto $2,800,000 in exchange for a dismissal of the entire complaint with prejudice and a full release of liability (including 1542 waiver) arising out of Ms. Desanto’s tenancy at the subject premises. Defendants will forward a draft release to Plaintiff’s counsel no later than March 3, 2023, that will NOT include a “Confidentiality Clause”, for review and approval. Payment will be made within 30 days of defense counsel’s receipt of the signed release. This agreement is contingent on Ms. Desanto vacating the subject premises within 60 days of the receipt of the signed release, with Defendants accepting the apartment in AS IS condition, Desanto is not responsible for any past due rent, nor any rent for the 60 days prior to the move out. Defendants will not serve any UD notices or make any attempts to evict Desanto, or any attempts to enter the premises for any purpose prior to the expiration of the 60 days. In the event of an emergency, Defendants must contact Desanto’s attorney Mr. Steven Simons prior to entry. Each side will bear its own costs and fees. Plaintiff will be responsible for satisfying any and all Medical liens includes Medi-Cal liens.

(Decl. Winter, Exh. A.)

            Defendants assert that they have sent the settlement funds to Plaintiff’s counsel, but Plaintiff has refused to vacate the premises. Plaintiff has indicated that she wishes to rescind the agreement and does not intend to vacate the premises. In opposition, Plaintiff asserts that her former counsel wrongfully forced her to sign the settlement agreement and requests that the court delay ruling on this motion until Plaintiff’s motion to rescind the agreement is heard.

Plaintiff also argues that Defendants have not complied with the settlement and that the motion asks the Court to enter orders that are contrary to the terms of the settlement. The Court agrees that the motion requests orders that are not part of the settlement. For example, Defendants now ask the Court to order all occupants to vacate the premises, though the settlement is contingent only on Plaintiff vacating the premises.

Additionally, the issue of the “release” contemplated in the settlement has not been resolved. Plaintiff asserts that the proposed release contained various documents and provisions not contemplated by the settlement, and Plaintiff has not executed the proposed release. The settlement is contingent on Plaintiff’s execution of the release, but Plaintiff need not execute documents that are contrary to the settlement. Defendants have not shown Plaintiff has breached the settlement agreement.

The Court may enter judgment only as to the terms of the settlement. Defendants request that the Court add terms to the settlement, and Defendants have failed to establish Plaintiff’s breach. Defendants’ motion is DENIED without prejudice.