Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 21CHCV00022, Date: 2024-10-31 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F47, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2247.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 21CHCV00022    Hearing Date: October 31, 2024    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 10/31/24

Case #21CHCV00022

MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT & ENTER JUDGMENT

Motion filed on 7/29/24.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff United States Senate Federal Credit Union

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Michelle H. Borrows

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order enforcing the settlement agreement entered into between Plaintiff and Defendant for entry of judgment pursuant to CCP 664.6. 

RULING: The motion is denied without prejudice. 

SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This action arises out of Defendant Michelle H. Burrows’ (Defendant) default on a Home Equity and Homeowner Loan (Loan) from Plaintiff United States Senate Federal Credit Union (Plaintiff).  On 1/11/21, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant for breach of contract seeking damages in the amount of $78,938.31 for the remaining principal balance of the Loan.

In July of 2021, Plaintiff and Defendant entered a written settlement agreement which resulted in the filing of a Stipulation and Order Re: Settlement, Retention of Jurisdiction, and Dismissal on 8/19/21.  (Kostelidis Decl., Ex.A).  The settlement agreement required Defendant to pay the total amount of $84,039.29 with one payment of $3,500.00 due on or before 7/29/21, and additional payments of $500.00 beginning 8/23/21, and continuing to be paid monthly on the 23rd of each month thereafter until 7/23/22.  Id.  And lastly, payments of $1,000.00 beginning 8/23/22 to be paid monthly thereafter until full payment of $84,039.29 is satisfied.  Id.  Plaintiff contends that Defendant has failed to comply with the terms of the settlement agreement by failing to make the agreed scheduled payments.  (Kostelidis Decl. ¶3(2)).

Therefore, on 7/29/24, Plaintiff filed the instant motion seeking an order enforcing the settlement agreement entered into between Plaintiff and Defendant for entry of judgment pursuant to CCP 664.6.  On 8/19/24, Plaintiff filed proofs of service indicating that the motion was served on Defendant by mailing the documents to Defendant at 27621 Skylark Lane, Santa Clarita, CA 91350.  Defendant has not opposed or otherwise responded to the motion. 

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff makes this motion pursuant to CCP 664.6(a) which provides:

“If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside of 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. If requested by the parties, the court may retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement.”

The following deficiencies in the motion preclude the granting of same: 

First, the Court cannot confirm that Defendant had proper notice of the hearing on the instant motion.  As noted above, the motion was served on Defendant by mail.  (See Proofs of Service filed on 8/19/24).  However, Defendant never appeared in this action; therefore, there is no address of record for Defendant in the court file.  Also, as noted above, there is no response to the motion by Defendant to cure the defect in notice. 

Second, Plaintiff has failed to provide sufficient evidence/information regarding the requested judgment to be entered against Defendant.  See Rooney (1973) 10 C3d 368-369.  The declaration submitted in support of the motion indicates that Plaintiff is requesting “that the Court award Plaintiff the full amount demanded in the complaint, plus interest according to proof, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in bringing this motion, less any payments made prior to breach, as provided for in the Settlement Agreement.”  (Kostelidis Decl. ¶4(2)).  However, Plaintiff does not provide any information/evidence regarding whether Defendant made any payments under the settlement agreement and/or the specific amount of the judgment Plaintiff seeks to have entered.  (See Motion, generally; Kostelidis Decl.; proposed Order).  Rather, Plaintiff merely indicates that Defendant “has failed to comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement by failing to make the required payments.”  (Kostelidis Decl. ¶3(2)).      

CONCLUSION

The motion is denied without prejudice.