Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 19STCV41520, Date: 2022-12-05 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 19STCV41520 Hearing Date: December 5, 2022 Dept: 34
SUBJECT: Ex Parte Application to Enforce
Settlement Agreement Pursuant to C.C.P. § 664.6
Moving Party: Plaintiff Westlake Village Property, L.P.
Resp. Party: Defendants
Dr. Leevil, LLC and D-Day Capital, LLC
Plaintiff’s Ex
Parte Application to Enforce Settlement Agreement is GRANTED.
On February 15, 2019,
Plaintiff Westlake Village Property, L.P. filed its Complaint against
Defendants Dr. Leevil, LLC and D-Day Capital, LLC on causes of action for breach
of written contract, accounting, and common count.
On September 29,
2021, pursuant to Plaintiff’s oral request, the Court dismissed with prejudice
this matter due to the Parties’ settlement. The Court retained jurisdiction to
make orders to enforce any and all terms of settlement, including judgment,
pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.
On October 25, 2022,
Plaintiff filed its Ex Parte Application to Enforce Settlement Agreement
Pursuant to C.C.P. § 664.6. Plaintiff
concurrently filed its Proposed Order and Declaration of Teri T. Pham.
On October 26, 2022,
Defendants filed their Opposition. Later on October 26, 2022, Defendants filed
their Amended Opposition.
On October 27, 2022,
the Court continued the Hearing on the Application to December 5, 2022 to allow
for a full opposition and reply.
On November 18, 2022,
Defendants filed their Opposition (“Renewed Opposition”).
On November 28, 2022,
Plaintiff filed its Reply. Plaintiff concurrently filed a new Declaration of
Teri T. Pham.
ANALYSIS:
I.
Legal
Standard
“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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6, subd. (a).)
“Section 664.6 was enacted to
provide a summary procedure for specifically enforcing a settlement contract
without the need for a new lawsuit.” (Weddington Prod., Inc. v. Flick
(1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 809.) In deciding motions made under Section 664.6,
judges “must determine whether the parties entered into a valid and binding
settlement.” (Kohn v. Jaymar-Ruby
(1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1530, 1533.)
II.
Discussion
Plaintiff claims that the Parties resolved their dispute by
means of a written settlement and that payment of the settlement balance is now
past due. (Application, p. 4:3–14.) Plaintiff provides the Court with a copy of
the signed settlement agreement. (Decl. Pham, Ex. 1.) Plaintiff requests that
the Court enter a judgment in its favor. (Application, p. 6:7–9.)
Defendant argues that this case is much more complicated than
it seems. Defendant points to a separate action regarding “maturity late fees”
that is currently pending in the Orange County Superior Court involving some,
but not all, of the Parties in this matter. (Renewed Opposition, p. 1:11–23 and
Ex. A.) Defendant claims that one of Plaintiff’s related entities “is trying to
pull a fast one in Orange County by claiming the exact same amounts that
Westlake has sued for in this Court and which it is requesting a judgment on
pursuant to the parties’ settlement.” (Renewed Opposition, p. 3:3–10.)
Defendant requests that the Court not enter judgment in this matter until the
action in the Orange County Superior Court is concluded so that appropriate
offsets can be made against the judgment in this case if Plaintiff’s related
entity prevails in the other case. (Id. at p. 3:11–16.) The relevant
hearing on a renewed motion for judgment on the pleadings appears to be
scheduled for March 3, 2023. (Id. at p. 3:1–2.)
In its Reply, Plaintiff argues that “[t]he relief sought in
the wrongful foreclosure action in Orange County does not conflict with the
settlement agreement between the parties in this case.” (Reply, p. 2:8–9.)
Plaintiff further argues that “even if it did, that is an issue that should be
taken up by the parties to that action with the court in that action,” noting
that Plaintiff is not a party to that action and that the plaintiff in that
action is not a party in this action. (Id. at p. 2:10–13.)
The issue before this Court is quite simple: should the Court
enforce the settlement entered into by Plaintiff Westlake Village Property,
L.P., Defendant Dr. Leevil, LLC, and Defendant D-Day Capital, LLC pursuant to
the authorities granted to the Court by Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6?
The answer is also simple: yes.
First, the Parties in this matter agreed to dismiss the case
with prejudice in order to settle their dispute. Even if one of the sides
possibly erred in not clarifying the terms of the settlement so that other
issues were not created or rectified in other cases, “[a]cquiescence in error
takes away the right of objecting to it.” (Civ. Code, § 3516.)
Second, the Court reserved authority to enforce the settlement,
including by judgment, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.
Third, in Defendants original opposition, they argued that
the Court should not decide this issue on an ex parte basis. That issue has become moot, since the Court
has continued the hearing to give defendants the statutory time to file an
opposition.
Finally, Defendants have not brought up a dispute about this
case with these Parties that would change the Parties’ settlement
agreement.
If, as Defendants argue, Plaintiff’s “related
entity—Mid-Wilshire—is trying to pull a fast one in Orange County” (Opposition,
p. 3:4), this Court has no doubt that those issues will be decided by the
Orange County Court in accord with the facts, the law, and this Court’s
Judgment in this matter (should this judgment be relevant). To put it another way, the Orange County case
is not before this Court.
The Court
GRANTS Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application to Enforce Settlement Agreement.
III.
Conclusion
Plaintiff’s Ex
Parte Application to Enforce Settlement Agreement is GRANTED.
Judgment is entered in favor of
Plaintiff Westlake Village Property, L.P. and against Defendant Dr. Leevil, LLC
in the amount of $577,643.84 and against Defendant D-Day Capital, LLC in the
amount of $412,602.74. Attorneys’ fees and costs are awarded for Plaintiff and
against both Defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount of $8,998.20.