Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 22STCV06296, Date: 2024-11-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV06296    Hearing Date: November 21, 2024    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: November 21, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice Leiter

Motion for Attorney’s Fees;

Motion to Compel Filing of Acknowledgment of Full Satisfaction of Judgment

T/R:      THE MOTIONS ARE CONTINUED TO JANUARY 13, 2025 AT 9:00 AM. THE COURT ALSO SETS AN OSC RE SETTING ASIDE JUDGMENT FOR THAT DATE AND TIME.

THE PARTIES ARE ORDERED TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING ON WHETHER THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE SET ASIDE, NOT TO EXCEED 10 PAGES, NO LATER THAN JANUARY 6, 2025.

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, oppositions, and replies.

Plaintiff moves for an award of attorney’s fees to enforce the parties’ settlement agreement and to enforce the judgment entered by the Court on August 1, 2024. Defendants oppose and move to compel Plaintiff to file an acknowledgement of full satisfaction of judgment.

The parties reached a settlement in May 2024, agreeing that Defendants would pay Plaintiff $15,000.00 within 30 days. A notice of settlement was filed on May 23, 2024. Defendants sent a formal agreement. Plaintiff’s counsel returned a copy signed not by Plaintiff, but by Plaintiff’s brother Steven Melville. Defendants objected to this signature. Plaintiff’s counsel informed Defendants’ counsel that Plaintiff had died several months prior, and that Steven Melville was Plaintiff’s successor-in-interest. Defendants again objected, stating that Melville had not filed a successor-in-interest declaration as required by CCP § 377.32.

Two days later, on July 11, 2024, Plaintiff filed an ex parte application to enforce the settlement and enter judgment, claiming Defendants had breached the agreement by failing to pay the settlement within 30 days. The Court granted the ex parte and entered judgment on August 1, 2024.

On September 16, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel received a check for $15,000.00 from Defendants. On September 30, 2024, Plaintiff filed the motion for attorney’s fees.

Plaintiff seeks $18,000.00 in attorney’s fees and $2,716.16 in costs to enforce the judgment under CCP § 685.040. In opposition, Defendants assert that the motion is untimely under CCP § 685.080 because judgment was satisfied before Plaintiff filed the motion. Defendants also argue that they did not breach the settlement because Plaintiff did not sign the agreement. In reply, Plaintiff asserts the motion is timely because Defendant did not satisfy the judgment in full, having failed to include an additional $189.06 in interest that accrued on the judgment between August 1, 2024 and September 16, 2024.

Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6 allows the Court enter judgment according to a written settlement “signed by the parties outside of the presence of the court.” “[A] writing is signed by a party if it is signed by any of the following: (1) The party. (2) An attorney who represents the party.” (CCP § 664.6(b).) Here, the agreement was not signed by Plaintiff, who was deceased before the parties settled, nor by a successor-in-interest who had filed the necessary declaration, nor by counsel. Additionally, the agreement attached to the ex parte application to enforce the settlement does not include Defendants’ signatures or Defendants’ counsel’s signature.

The Court believes it may not have had authority to enforce the settlement and enter judgment under CCP § 664.6. Code of Civil Procedure § 473(d) and the Court’s inherent authority allow the Court set aside void judgments. (See e.g. Sec. Pac. Nat. Bank v. Lyon (1980) 105 Cal.App.3d Supp. 8, 13, “A judgment or order that is void on its face can be set aside on motion or on the court's own motion at any time after its entry by the court that rendered the judgment or made the order.”) If the judgment is void, Plaintiff is not entitled to recover attorney’s fees and costs to enforce it, and Defendants are not required to pay interest on it.

The Court requires additional briefing from the parties as to whether the judgment should be set aside.

The motions are CONTINUED.