Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 20STCV42449, Date: 2022-08-02 Tentative Ruling

The Court often posts its tentative several days in advance of the hearing. Please re-check the tentative rulings the day before the hearing to be sure that the Court has not revised the ruling since the time it was posted.

Please call the clerk at (213) 633-0154 by 4:00 pm. the court day before the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative.

Case Number: 20STCV42449    Hearing Date: August 2, 2022    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:                 Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Pursuant to CCP § 664.6 and for Attorney’s Fees and Costs in the Sum of $3,287.00

Moving Party:          Plaintiff Edmundo Espinosa

Resp. Party:             Defendant Carlos Thomas Espinosa

Plaintiff Edmundo Espinosa’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Pursuant to CCP § 664.6 is GRANTED. The Court orders enforcement of the Settlement Agreement in its entirety.

Plaintiff Edmundo Espinosa’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees is GRANTED in part in the amount of $1,460.

I.           BACKGROUND

On November 5, 2020, Plaintiff Edmundo Espinosa filed a verified complaint against Defendant Carlos Thomas Espinosa alleging the following causes of action:

1.           Quiet Title;

2.           Declaratory Relief;

3.           Partition;

4.           Accounting; and

5.           Unjust Enrichment

On April 5, 2022, the Court ordered Plaintiff’s Complaint dismissed without prejudice and retained jurisdiction to make order to enforce any and all terms of settlement, including judgment, pursuant to CCP § 664.6.

On April 5, 2022, Plaintiff moved the Court to enforce the settlement agreement and enter judgment in accordance with the terms of the settlement between Plaintiff and Defendant, and for an order awarding attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $3,287.00 pursuant to CCP § 1034. (Motion, p. 1:25—2:2.)

On July 20, 2022, Defendant opposed Plaintiff’s motion to enforce settlement and for attorney’s fees.

II.        ANALYSIS

A.          Legal Standard

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, “if 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. 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.”   

“Section 664.6 was enacted to provide a summary procedure for specifically enforcing a settlement contract without the need for a new lawsuit.”  (Weddington Productions, 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.)  

B.          Discussion

1.           Motion to Enforce Settlement

On December 15, 2021, Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a formal settlement agreement (“Settlement Agreement”). (Fok Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. A.) “Defendant does not oppose the terms of the settlement in this case, and Defendant intends to perform his obligations under the terms.” (Opposition, p. 1:23-24.) The Court finds that the parties agreed that they are each responsible for half of the property tax amounts, both current and delinquent, owed to the Los Angeles County Assessor for the Property as of the Effective Date of the Settlement Agreement, and that Defendant will deduct Plaintiff’s share of the property taxes from the payment made to Plaintiff as a result of the Settlement Agreement. (Fok Decl., Ex. A, p. 1, § 1.b.)

Defendant was to pay Plaintiff $340,000.00 less Plaintiff’s half of the property taxes within ninety (90) days of December 15, 2021, the Effective Date of the Settlement Agreement. (Fok Decl., Ex. A, p. 1, § 1.c.) Within fourteen (14) days of the Effective Date, Plaintiff was to execute a quitclaim deed conveying the entire Property to Defendant and deliver the original quitclaim deed to an escrow company designated by Defendant. (Fok Decl., Ex. A, p. 2, § 1.d.) Parties were to execute a Stipulated Judgment in favor of Plaintiff for the $340,000.00. (Fok Decl., Ex. A, p. 3, § 1.g.)

Ninety days from the Effective Date of the Settlement Agreement was March 15, 2022. (Fok Decl., ¶ 4.) No payment was made to Plaintiff by March 15, 2022. (Fok Decl., ¶ 8.) Defendant contends that enforcement action under the Settlement Agreement is premature, given that extenuating circumstances outside of Defendant’s control impedes his performance under the Settlement Agreement, and that the parties “have been in communication over the delay.” (Opposition, p. 1:24—2:2.) Defendant notes his cooperation under the Settlement Agreement’s terms and his lack of refusal to perform under the Settlement Agreement. (Opposition, p. 2:22—3:6.)

Defendant states that the closing on a property sale intended to fund Defendant’s Settlement Agreement obligations was delayed until after July 1, 2022 but has since proceeded. (Opposition, p. 2:16-17.) Defendant attests that he now is ready to fund the settlement payment via an escrow account. (Opposition, p. 2:17-18; see also Fok Decl., ¶¶ 9-15.) Defendant states that “Plaintiff has been provided with a separate document for purposes of opening the escrow contemplated by the Settlement Agreement, and Defendant is presently awaiting a response and/or Plaintiff’s execution of the document.” (Opposition, p. 2:19-21.) Defendant does not provide a copy of this document to the Court for independent verification.

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s motion was not premature. Defendant failed to uphold the required payment under the Settlement Agreement to Plaintiff on schedule. While Defendant attests that this delay is now curable, Defendant does not provide the Court with any evidence to support his claim.

2.           Request for Attorney’s Fees and Costs

Plaintiff requests that the Court grant attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $3,287.00. (Motion, p. 2:1; Motion, MPA, p. 8:9; Fok Decl., ¶ 25.) Plaintiff’s counsel notes that her billing rate is $350.00 per hour. (Fok Decl., ¶ 19.) Plaintiff’s counsel attests that she spent 3.5 hours to prepare the instant motion, along with its associated declaration and related papers, and expended 1.72 hours in pre-motion work to informally resolve concerns with Defendants’ failure to perform under the Settlement Agreement. (Fok Decl., ¶¶ 20-21, Ex. D.) Plaintiff’s counsel expects to spend four (4) hours to review Defendant’s Opposition, prepare a Reply, and attend the Court’s hearing on the instant motion. (Fok Decl., ¶ 22.) To file the instant motion Plaintiff’s counsel expects Plaintiff to incur a $60.00 filing fee. (Fok Decl., ¶ 24.) Thus, Plaintiff requests $3,287.00 in attorney’s fees and costs.

The Court takes no issue with Plaintiff’s counsel’s billed hours in motion preparation.  The Court will not award sanctions for informal attempts to resolve this issue.  (The Court also questions how counsel can bill to the hundredths of an hour; 1/100 of an hour is 36 seconds.)    The Court also notes that Plaintiff did not file a reply brief.

The Court awards sanctions for 4 hours of attorney time for $1,400.00 plus costs of $60.00 for a total of $1,460.00.

III.     CONCLUSION

Plaintiff Edmundo Espinosa’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Pursuant to CCP § 664.6 is GRANTED. The Court orders enforcement of the Settlement Agreement in its entirety.

Plaintiff Edmundo Espinosa’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees is GRANTED in part in the amount of $1,460.