Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 23CHCV03096, Date: 2025-05-28 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: 23CHCV03096    Hearing Date: May 28, 2025    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 5/28/25

Case #23CHCV03096

MOTION TO COMPEL EXECUTION OF RELEASE,

OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE,

TO SET ASIDE OR VACATE JUDGMENT

Motion filed on 1/6/25.

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Bryan Arthur Terzian and Anjum Terzian

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Shideh Jabbary

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling Plaintiff Shideh Jabbary to execute Defendants Bryan Arthur Terzian and Anjum Terzian’s release of any and all claims against Defendants or in the alternative to set aside or vacate the judgment entered by this Court on 12/16/24.

RULING: The request to vacate the judgment is granted. 

SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This action arises out of an automobile accident that occurred on 10/26/22 in Chatsworth, California.  On 10/13/23, Plaintiff Shideh Jabbary (Plaintiff) filed this personal injury action  against Defendants Bryan Arthur Terzian and Anjum Terzian (Defendants).  On 12/20/23, Defendants answered the complaint.  Liability and damages are disputed.

On 10/3/24, Defendants served a CCP 998 Offer to Compromise on Plaintiff whereby Defendants would pay Plaintiff the sum of $25,000.00 in exchange for a release of any and all claims by plaintiff against defendants with each side to bear their own costs.  (Tusa Decl., Ex.A). 

On 10/24/24, Bryan Terzian (24CHCV03893) filed a complaint against Plaintiff arising out of the same accident.  No proof of service has been filed in that case.    

On 10/31/24, Plaintiff accepted Defendants’ offer to compromise.  Id.  On 11/4/24, Defendants’ counsel emailed the required Release of Any and All Claims to Plaintiff’s attorney.  (Id., Ex.B).  On 11/11/24, Plaintiff’s attorney sent proposed revisions to the Release to Defendant’s attorney.  (Id., Ex.C).  Defendants’ counsel responded that the revisions were not acceptable.  Id. 

On 12/13/24, Plaintiff submitted a proposed Judgment.  (Tusa Decl., Ex.D).  On 12/16/24, Defendants filed an Objection to Plaintiff’s Request for Entry of Judgment.  (Id., Ex.E).  The Court entered the proposed Judgment submitted by Plaintiff on 12/16/24.  (Id., Ex.D).  On 12/17/24, Defendants filed and served a Notice of Related Cases regarding the instant case and the case filed by Bryan Terzian against Plaintiff.  On 12/26/24, Plaintiff filed and served a Notice of Entry of Judgment.  On 12/31/24, Defendants filed and served another Notice of Related Cases.  On 1/6/25, the Court related the cases.  (See 1/6/25 Minute Order). 

On 1/6/25, Defendants filed and served the instant motion seeking an order compelling Plaintiff to execute Defendants’ release of any and all claims against Defendants or in the alternative to set aside or vacate the judgment entered by this Court on 12/16/24.  Plaintiff has not opposed or otherwise responded to the motion.  However, on 2/7/25, Plaintiff submitted a DMV “Certificate of Facts Re Unsatisfied Judgment.”

ANALYSIS

The Court finds that the judgment entered on 12/16/24 does not fully reflect the compromise entered between the parties since it does not include the term of the statutory compromise which required Plaintiff to sign a release of any and all claims by plaintiff against defendants.  (See 12/16/24 Judgment and Ex.A thereto).  Defendants have submitted unrefuted evidence that the parties could not come to an  agreement regarding the terms and language of the release contemplated by the compromise and that Plaintiff has not complied with such term.  (See Tusa Decl. ¶¶5-7, 9, Ex.B-C).  As such, the Court finds a lack of mutual consent regarding an essential  term of the CCP 998 offer to compromise and the judgment entered pursuant thereto.  See Civil Code 1580.   

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that based on face of the record, the judgment entered on 12/16/24 should be vacated.  See CCP 473(d). 

CONCLUSION

The request to vacate the judgment is granted.