Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 23CMCV00204, Date: 2023-10-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CMCV00204    Hearing Date: November 16, 2023    Dept: A

23CMCV00204 Jae Jun Cha, Lala Beauty Supply, Inc., et al v. Mhmm Beauty, Inc., Seung Lin Lee

Thursday, November 16, 2023 2023 at 8:30 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ORDER ENFORCING TERMS OF STIPULATION FOR SETTLEMENT

       The complaint alleges that Defendants breached a contract to make installment payments toward the purchase of Plaintiffs’ business for $500,000. Plaintiffs allege claims for breach of contract and common counts. The parties settled this dispute by signing a written settlement agreement and release of all claims on June 15, 2023.

       The Court continued the hearing on this motion from September 27, 2023, to this date to allow Plaintiffs to serve the notice of continuance and the motion on the individual defendant, Leung Lin Lee. On October 19, 2023, Plaintiffs complied with the Court’s order by serving the Notice of Continuance and this motion on the individual Defendant and counsel for the corporation, Mhmm Beauty, Inc. No opposition has been filed.

        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.) 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 have submitted the parties’ signed settlement agreement. (Decl. of Gregory S. Kim, Ex. A, .pdf p. 28.) The agreement provided for a schedule of payments for the purchase price as well as for the remaining rent on the subject premises to be made to the landlord. (Id., .pdf p. 20, 23-24.) Defendants failed to make the installments on the purchase price of $240,000 and made only partial payments for rent, breaching the parties’ agreement. (Decl. of Jae Jun Cha, ¶¶ 9-11.) The agreement provides that in the event of a breach, the Court can enter judgment pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6 for $240,000 for purchase of the business and required rental payments less payments received by Plaintiffs plus interest on the remaining balance. (Id. .pdf page 25, ¶¶ 6.0.)

       Plaintiffs also request reimbursement for attorney’s fees and costs incurred to prepare this motion totaling $4,405.00. The settlement agreement provides for recovery by the prevailing party of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs in the event of a breach. (Id. at .pdf page 27, ¶ 14.1.) Defense counsel requests $395 per hour which the Court finds reasonable. The Court finds that five hours (reduced from 11 hours) to prepare the motion and appear at the hearing is reasonable. Defendants did not file an opposition, and a reply brief was not filed. 

V.   CONCLUSION

       Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion and enters judgment pursuant to the settlement agreement as follows: