Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 22STCV08701, Date: 2025-03-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV08701    Hearing Date: March 21, 2025    Dept: 54

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

 

Moonlight Construction, Inc.,

 

 

 

Plaintiff,

 

Case No.:

 

 

22STCV08701

 

vs.

 

 

Tentative Ruling

 

 

Rufus G. Thayer, III,

 

 

 

Defendants.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hearing Date: March 21, 2025

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Enforce Settlement

Moving Party: Defendant/Cross-Complainant Rufus G. Thayer III

Responding Party: Cross-Defendants Moonlight Construction, Inc., Ben Nino Hunter and Moran Elkarif

 

T/R:      DEFENDANT/CROSS-COMPLAINANT’S MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT IS CONTINUED TO APRIL 16, 2025 AT 9:00 AM.

DEFENDANT 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.

 

“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.) 

 

Defendant/Cross-Complainant moves to enforce the settlement executed by the parties on June 13, 2024, and to enter judgment according to its terms. The settlement provides that Cross-Defendants will pay Cross-Complainant the sum of $320,000.00 in monthly payments of $10,000.00. The settlement also provides that judgment will be entered in the amount of $350,000.00 should Cross-Defendants default on their payments. Cross-Complainant represents that no payments have been made by Cross-Defendants.

 

In opposition, Cross-Defendants assert that they have experienced serious medical and financial hardships since the settlement. Cross-Defendants also request that the Court continue the hearing on this motion as their counsel has filed a motion to withdraw.

 

Since counsel for Cross-Defendants has moved to withdraw, the Court will grant a brief continuance of this motion to allow Cross-Defendants to provide a further opposition, if they wish to do so. That opposition, and any supplemental reply, are due on the Code deadlines based on the continued hearing date.