Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: BC314089, Date: 2024-01-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC314089    Hearing Date: January 18, 2024    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:        Motion for Entry of Judgment Pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 664.6

Moving Party: Plaintiffs Evelyn Horton and Horton Management, Co., Inc.

Resp. Party:    None

The Motion for Entry of Judgment Pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 664.6 is GRANTED.

Judgment is AWARDED in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants in the amount of $140,282.48.

Monetary sanctions are AWARDED in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants in the amount of $1,361.65.

Moving party is to prepare judgment.

BACKGROUND:

        On April 21, 2004, Plaintiffs Evelyn Horton and Horton Management, Co., Inc. filed their Complaint against Defendants Hooper Lundy & Bookman, Inc.; Hope R. Levy-Biehl; John K. Jones; and John K. Jones, M.D., Inc. The Complaint included causes of action for legal malpractice, breach of contract, slander, conversion, and fraud.

        On August 3, 2005, Defendants/Cross-Complainants John K. Jones and John K. Jones, M.D., Inc. filed their Cross-Complaint against Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants Evelyn Horton and Horton Management Co., Inc. on causes of action for negligence.

        On August 29, 2005, Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants filed their First Amended Complaint.

        On December 1, 2005, Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants filed their Second Amended Complaint.

        On March 14, 2006, Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants filed their Third Amended Complaint.

        On January 12, 2007, by request of Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants, the Clerk’s Office dismissed with prejudice Defendants Hooper Lundy & Bookman and Hope R. Levy-Biehl from the Third Amended Complaint.

        On March 7, 2007, the Court entered summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants and against Defendants/Cross-Complainants on both causes of action for negligence in the Cross-Complaint.

        On March 13, 2012, by request of Plaintiffs, the Clerk’s Office dismissed with prejudice the entire Complaint, with the Court to retain jurisdiction pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.

        On December 19, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Entry of Judgment Pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 664.6.

        No opposition or other response has been filed to the Motion.

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

Plaintiffs move the Court to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs (Evelyn Horton and Horton Management, Co., Inc.) and against Defendants (John K. Jones and John K. Jones, M.D., Inc.) in the amount of $140,282.48, plus $4,550.00 in attorney’s fees and $61.65 in costs. (Motion, pp. 4:3–8, 7:5–9.)

Among other documents, Plaintiffs provide the Court with a copy of the “Second Amendment to March 2007 Settlement Agreement Between Everlyn Horton and Horton Management Company, Inc. on the One Hand, and John K. Jones, M.D. and John K. Jones, M.D., Inc. on the Other Hand” (“Second Amended Agreement”). (Motion, Exh. 2, p. 1.) The Second Amended Agreement is signed by both Plaintiffs (on April 24, 2018) and by both Defendants (on April 20, 2018). (Id. at p. 5.)

Defendants do not oppose the Motion.

The Court finds that the Parties entered into a valid and binding settlement. The Court shall enter judgment that conforms with the written settlement agreement.

        The hourly rate and costs requested are reasonable, but the number of hours claimed is not reasonable. This is a standard motion to enforce a settlement which should not have required four hours, and the anticipated three hours to review the opposition did not materialize. The Court will award two hours of work at the hourly rate requested, plus costs.

III.     Conclusion

The Motion for Entry of Judgment Pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 664.6 is GRANTED.

Judgment is AWARDED in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants in the amount of $140,282.48.

Monetary sanctions are AWARDED in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants in the amount of $1,361.65.

Moving party is to prepare judgment.