Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 22SMCV02499, Date: 2024-04-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV02499    Hearing Date: April 23, 2024    Dept: 207

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

Plaintiff Patio Del Moro, LLC (“Plaintiff”) moves to enforce the stipulated judgment entered into between Plaintiff and Defendant John Coyne (“Defendant”).  Plaintiff’s motion is unopposed. 

ANALYSIS

Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 provides that “[i]f 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6.) In ruling on a motion to enter judgment, the court acts as a trier of fact. The court must determine whether the parties entered into a valid and binding settlement. To do so, the court may receive oral testimony in addition to declarations. (Kohn v. Jaymar-Ruby, Inc. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1530, 1533.)

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.

Here, the parties entered into an Unlawful Detainer Stipulated Judgment on July 20, 2023, which the Court entered the same day (See Stipulated Judgment, Jul. 20, 2023; Ex. 3 to Reynoso Decl.)  Pursuant to the terms of the stipulated judgment, judgment was entered for Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of $108,000, plus $1000 in attorney fees and $345 in costs.  Defendant was to pay $6,750 per month plus $6,000 for a total of $12,750 on the first of each month.  Defendant had 3 days to cure any default after notice from Plaintiff.  In the event of default, judgment is to be entered on the remaining balance due, plus attorney fees of $1,000 and costs of $345.

In the event of default, Defendant’s rights under the lease were also to be forfeited and Plaintiff awarded possession of the premises, and upon Defendant’s payment of the $108,000, Defendant could resume leasing the premises.

Defendant’s payments stopped in February of 2024, leaving a remaining balance of $72,000 on the judgment.  (Reynoso Decl. ¶¶ 9, 11 and Ex. 4.)  Plaintiff notified Defendant of his default of the February payment on February 20, 2024.  (Reynoso Decl. ¶ 12 and Ex. 5.)  Plaintiff did not receive a response from Plaintiff within three days and had not yet received payments for February or March as of April 1, 2024. (Reynoso Decl. ¶ 12.)

Plaintiff seeks a judgment in the outstanding balance of $72,000, plus $1,000 in attorneys’ fees and $345 in costs, for a total of $73,345, plus possession of the premises, and forfeiture of Defendant’s lease.  Plaintiff also seeks daily interest from April 23, 2024 of $22.53 per day until the judgment is satisfied.

The proposed judgment conforms with the terms of the stipulated judgment except for the daily interest.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to enforce settlement, with the exception of the request for daily interest, and will enter the judgment in conformance with the ruling. 

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

DATED:  April 23, 2024                                                        ___________________________

                                                                                          Michael E. Whitaker

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court