Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 22STCV01203, Date: 2023-05-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV01203    Hearing Date: May 2, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: May 2, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Enforce Settlement

Moving Party: Plaintiff 740 South Broadway Associates, LLC

Responding Party: Defendant Chol Enterprises, Inc.

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

PLAINTIFF 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, reply, and supplemental briefs and declarations.

“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.) 

            Plaintiff moves for an order enforcing the settlement entered between the parties on April 7, 2022. Plaintiff asserts that the settlement required Defendant make certain repairs and renovations to the property Defendant rents from Plaintiff within 30-90 days of execution of the settlement. Plaintiff represents that Defendant has failed to make the required repairs within 30-90 days of the settlement. In opposition, Defendant asserts that it has been working diligently and in good faith to make the repairs, and any delays have been out of Defendant’s control or caused by Plaintiff. Defendant also emphasizes that Plaintiff did not raise the issue of timeliness until November 18, 2022, long after the deadlines had passed.

            In the supplemental briefing, the parties again disagree over the proper procedures and timelines for fixing the sprinkler system. Plaintiff asserts the judgment must be enforced because Defendant failed to obtain a contractor to create plans for a sprinkler system within 90 days of execution of the settlement. Defendant asserts contractors were hired on the day the agreement was executed.

            As shown in the parties’ papers, the necessary procedures to install the sprinkler system are hotly debated. The parties attempted to resolve the issue at a conference with their respective contractors on April 25, 2023, but it is unclear what conclusion was reached. Regardless, it appears that Defendant has been trying to comply with the parties’ agreement, for example, by suggesting the parties’ contractors meet with each other.

            Plaintiff has not shown at this time that Defendant has materially breached the agreement. Based on the most recent declarations, the parties should continue to try to resolve through negotiation the issues concerning the sprinkler system. The motion is DENIED without prejudice.