Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 19SMCV00537, Date: 2024-12-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19SMCV00537    Hearing Date: December 16, 2024    Dept: 207

TENTATIVE RULING

BACKGROUND

This case arises from an employment dispute.  On March 18, 2019, Plaintiffs Milan Cvejic (“Plaintiff”) and Kareem Akhtar (“Akhtar”) filed the instant action against Defendants Skyview Capital, LLC, Newnet Communications Technologies, LLC, Newnet Investment Group, Alex Soltani, and Christopher Aye.  The Complaint asserts fourteen causes of action for (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) willful failure to pay wages; (4) quantum meruit; (5) promissory estoppel; (6) conversion; (7) intentional misrepresentation; (8) violation of Labor Code section 970; (9) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (10) unlawful business practices; (11) failure to reimburse; (12) breach of fiduciary duty; (13) unjust enrichment; and (14) declaratory relief.

            On June 7, 2022, Akhtar filed a notice of settlement of Akhrtar’s claims.

            On May 30, 2024, Plaintiff Cvejic filed a notice of settlement of entire case, indicating a conditional settlement had been reached.  As a result, the Court vacated the pending hearing dates, including the final status conference and jury trial.  (Minute Order, May 31, 2024.)

            Plaintiff now moves for an order enforcing the settlement agreement.  Defendants Skyview Capital, LLC; Newnet Communications Technologies, LLC; Newnet Investment Group, LLC; and Alex Soltani (“Defendants”) oppose the motion and Plaintiff replies.

ANALYSIS

The issue on a motion to enforce settlement agreement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 is whether the parties entered into a valid and binding settlement agreement. (See Viejo v. Bancorp. (1989) 217 Cal.App.3d 200, 209, fn. 4 [“a court's power to make factual determinations under section 664.6 is generally limited to whether the parties entered into a valid and binding settlement agreement”].)  In other words, the only issue before the court is whether an agreement exists; not whether the agreement has been breached.

Once the Court finds such a settlement agreement exists, “the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6, subd. (a).)  “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.”

In support of the motion, Plaintiff has provided the Declaration of Alishan Jadhavji, which provides:

2. On March 8, 2024, the parties in this case reached a settlement agreement, which was subsequently memorialized in writing. A true and correct copy of the signed settlement agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit "A".

3. The key terms of the settlement agreement are as follows:

a. The agreement was effective March 1, 2024.

b. Defendants agreed to pay a principal amount of $653,205 (which included attorney's fees and costs awarded by this Court and an additional settlement amount) plus accrued interest.

c. The payment was due on or before 180 days from the Effective Date of the Agreement, which was September 1, 2024.

d. If the principal amount plus accrued interest was not paid by September 1, 2024, interest on all amounts would accrue at 10%.

4. The settlement agreement was signed by Defendants Skyview Capital LLC, Newnet Communications Technologies, LLC, and Alex Soltani on March 21, 2024, by Defendant Christopher Aye on March 22, 2024, and by Plaintiff Milan Cvejic on August 29, 2024.

5. It should be noted that due to errors in drafting, Defendant Skyview Capital LLC was omitted in the preamble to the agreement but signed the agreement, and Defendant NewNet Investment Group was included in the preamble but did not sign the agreement. Nevertheless, the agreement was signed by Defendant Alex Soltani as principal of all Defendants.

6. As of the date of this declaration, Defendants have failed to comply with the terms of the settlement by not paying the settlement amount of $653,205 plus accrued interest by September 1, 2024, as required by the settlement agreement.

(Jadhavji Decl., ¶¶ 2-6.)

            Although the declaration purports to attach a copy of the agreement as Exhibit A, no such Exhibit is attached or otherwise provided to the Court.

            As such, Plaintiff has failed to meet its burden to prove a written settlement agreement exists between the parties.  Furthermore, without seeing the written settlement agreement, the Court cannot confirm that the terms of the judgment Plaintiff seeks are aligned with the parties’ agreement.

CONCLUSION

            Therefore, having found Plaintiff failed to meet its burden of proof that a written settlement agreement exists between the parties, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion.

Plaintiff shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file the notice with a proof of service forthwith.  

DATED:  December 16, 2024                                                ___________________________

                                                                                          Michael E. Whitaker

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court