Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 22STCV21305, Date: 2025-05-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV21305    Hearing Date: May 13, 2025    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: May 13, 2025

Department 54, Judge Maurice Leiter

Motion to Set Aside Dismissal and Enter Judgment Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 664.6

Moving Party: Plaintiff Pacific American Fish Co.  

Responding Party: Unopposed  

T/R:     The Motion to Set Aside Dismissal and Enter Judgment Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6 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. No opposition papers were filed.

BACKGROUND

On June 30, 2022, Plaintiff Pacific American Fish Co., Inc. filed a Complaint against Defendants Annie K. Tam aka Anne Kwokwai Tam, Tam Kwok W. Kowai-Tam and Yeung’s Trading Corp., alleging causes of action for: (1) Conversion; (2) Fraudulent Misrepresentation; (3) Fraud by Concealment; (4) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (5) Accounting; and (6) Declaratory Relief.

On September 25, 2024, the Court entered a stipulation and order between Plaintiff and Defendant Annie K. Tam dismissing the case with the Court retaining jurisdiction pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6.

Plaintiff now moves to set aside the dismissal and enter judgment on the ground that Defendant Tam failed to perform under the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement. The motion is unopposed.

            Peter Huh, President/CEO of Plaintiff, declares, inter alia, that he “ultimately authorized PAFCO’s settlement of [the claims asserted in the complaint] with Tam in exchange for payment of $125,000.” (Huh Decl., ¶ 3.) Mr. Huh states that “[a]s of the date of this [d]eclaration, PAFCO has not received any payments by Tam towards the settlement. The full sum of $125,000 remains unpaid and owing.” (Huh Decl., ¶ 6.)

            The settlement agreement provides that, in the event of default, Plaintiff will provide written notice to Defendant Tam and her counsel of record, and Defendant Tam will be given ten calendar days to cure the default. (Huh Decl., Exh. A at ¶ 5.) The settlement agreement states that “[o]nly if the payment remains unpaid after the expiration of the 10-day grace period shall PAFCO be entitled to any further legal remedies, including but not limited to enforcement of the terms of this Agreement under California Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6.” (Huh Decl., Exh. A at ¶ 5.)

            There is no evidence that Plaintiff provided written notice to Defendant Tam and her counsel of record that Defendant Tam failed to provide a timely payment. “[A] condition precedent is either an act of a party that must be performed or an uncertain event that must happen before the contractual right accrues or the contractual duty arises.” (Dones v. Life Insurance Company of North America (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 665, 677.) “If the condition is not fulfilled, the right to enforce the contract does not evolve.” (Ibid.) Plaintiff has not shown compliance with a condition precedent to allow the entry of judgment against Defendant Tam.