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.