Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 20CMCV00224, Date: 2023-08-03 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/u
Case Number: 20CMCV00224 Hearing Date: August 3, 2023 Dept: A
20CMCV00224 James O. Smith, et al. v. John
Anderson, Jr., et al.
[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT
I.
BACKGROUND
The First Amended Complaint (“FAC”)
alleges that Plaintiffs owned real property subject to a Deed of Trust in favor
of Wells Fargo. Plaintiffs leased the premises to Defendants with an option to
purchase. Plaintiffs subsequently amended the agreement which obligated
Plaintiffs to carry the Wells Fargo loan while Defendants were responsible for
making monthly mortgage payments. Concurrently with this agreement, Plaintiffs
signed a grant deed transferring title to Defendants. In 2020, Defendants breached
the agreement by failing to make mortgage payments. Plaintiffs allege claims
for (1) breach of contract, (2) specific performance, (3) breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (4) promissory estoppel, (5)
declaratory relief, and (6) quiet title.
II.
ARGUMENTS
Plaintiffs argue that the parties settled
their disputes on January 4, 2023. Plaintiffs were required to move exparte
to force Defendants to comply with the agreement to allow a buyer to close on
the real property. Plaintiffs now seek reimbursement for their damages of
$142,833.99 incurred to enforce the agreement.
In opposition, Defendants contend that
Plaintiffs have not alleged a breach of contract. Plaintiffs did not offer any
admissible evidence to establish any damage proximately caused by Defendants. The
Court should impose sanctions against Plaintiffs for filing a frivolous motion.
III.
DISCUSSION
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 does not make modifications or
force terms not agreed to in the written agreement. (Id.) at 207.
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.)
Plaintiffs do not cite any portion of the
settlement agreement that permits a party prevailing on a motion to enforce
settlement to recover attorney’s fees, costs, or damages incurred to enforce
settlement. The agreement provides that a prevailing party “in an action at law
or equity, including an action for declaratory or injunctive relief,” arising
from or related to the agreement, may recover attorney’s fees and costs incurred
in prosecuting the action. (Decl. of Blake Slater, Ex. A, page 4, ¶ 6.) The court
cannot add to or modify an express term of the settlement without the mutual
consent of the parties. (Leeman v. Adams Extract & Spice, LLC (2015) 236
Cal.App.4th 1367, 1375.)
As the settlement
agreement does not provide for the remedy Plaintiffs seek, the Court declines
to rule on Defendants’ objections to the Slater Declaration as the allegations
of Defendants’ breach are irrelevant to the disposition of this motion. As
contemplated by the parties’ settlement agreement, Plaintiffs’ remedy for
recovering damages is by way of an action at law or equity.
Defendants’ request for
imposition of sanctions is denied as there is no evidence of Plaintiffs’
subjective bad faith. (In re
Marriage of Sahafzadeh-Taeb & Taeb (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 124, 135 [Whether an
action is “frivolous” for purposes of Civ. Proc., § 128.5, is governed by an
objective standard, but “there must also be a showing of an improper purpose,
i.e., subjective bad faith on the part of the attorney or
party to be sanctioned.”])
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED.