Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 22CMCV00204, Date: 2023-11-14 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22CMCV00204 Hearing Date: November 14, 2023 Dept: A
[TENTATIVE] ORDER
Plaintiff
alleges claims under the Song-Beverly and Magnuson-Moss Acts for Defendant’s
alleged failure to replace a defective vehicle.
Plaintiff
asks for an order enforcing the parties’ settlement agreement which Plaintiff
signed on July 16, 2023. Defendant was required to buy back the vehicle, pay
off the loan, and make restitution to Plaintiff within 60 days.
In
opposition, Defendant argues that the motion is moot and unnecessary. Defendant
has a backlog of cases in its queue, and the process is taking longer to
complete. However, on October 19, 2023, Defendant notified Plaintiff that the
settlement checks have been issued. Defendant has prioritized the vehicle’s surrender.
In
reply, Plaintiff argues that the motion is not moot. Plaintiff surrendered the
vehicle on November 3, 2023; however, Plaintiff has not received payment, nor
has Defendant paid off the loan.
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
enforcing 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. at 991.)
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.)
Plaintiff
has submitted the parties’ signed settlement agreement. (Declaration of
Aliaksandra Valitskaya, Exhibit 1.) Defendant was required to make payments
within 60 days of receipt of the fully signed agreement (Id., page 1, ¶
2.). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to
complete the settlement within seven calendar days.