Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 19CMCV00103, Date: 2024-10-17 Tentative Ruling

INSTRUCTIONS: If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance on the matter, the moving party must:

1. Contact the opposing party and all other parties who have appeared in the action and confirm that each will submit on the tentative ruling.

2. No later than 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing, call the Courtroom (310-761-4302) advising that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling and waive hearing; and

3. Serve notice of the Court's ruling on all parties entitled to receive service.

If this procedure is followed, when the case is called the Court will enter its ruling on the motion in accordance with its tentative ruling. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary, and all parties should appear at the hearing. If there is neither a telephone call nor an appearance, then the matter may either be taken off calendar or ruled on. 

TENTATIVE RULINGS -- http://www.lacourt.org/tentativeRulingNet/ui/main.aspx?casetype=civil

Case Number: 19CMCV00103    Hearing Date: October 17, 2024    Dept: A

19CMCV00103 Northern Collection Service, Inc. v. PV Guru, Inc.

Thursday, October 17, 2024, at 8:30 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER  GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

      This action arises from Defendant’s alleged failure to pay insurance premiums totaling $273,421.15 to Plaintiff’s assignor, State Compensation Insurance Fund. The complaint alleges a claim for open book account.

      Plaintiff agreed to settle with Defendant for $150,000. Defendant failed to make any payments. The agreement provides that in the event of a default and Defendant’s failure to cure, Plaintiff is entitled to entry of judgment as alleged in the complaint plus court costs of $728.87. (Mot. Ex., A, ¶ 4.)

      Defendant timely served the motion on Defendant’s counsel, who did not file an opposition.

      A party can move for entry of judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement. (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6.) The court’s power is limited to determining the existence of the agreement and to enforce its settlement. (Corkland v. Boscoe (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 989, 994.) The court may receive oral testimony or may determine the motion upon declarations alone. (Id.)

      The court applies general contract principles when interpreting a settlement agreement.
(Leeman v. Adams Extract & Spice, LLC (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 1367, 1374.)The mutual intent of the parties and interpretation of the contract are based on the language of the agreement alone. (Id.) In construing a contract, "it is not a court's prerogative to alter it, to rewrite its clear terms, or to make a new contract for the parties."(Moss Dev. Co. v. Geary (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 1, 9.)

      Plaintiff has established that it is entitled to judgment according to the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.