Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 23STCV27069, Date: 2025-05-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV27069    Hearing Date: May 27, 2025    Dept: 40

23STCV27069 Carmen Campos v. RAD Diversified REIT, Inc., et al.

Tuesday, May 27, 2025

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AND ENTER JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT, RAD DIVERSIFIED REIT, INC.

I.       BACKGROUND

      Plaintiff alleges Defendants, who employed Plaintiff as a fund accountant, subjected Plaintiff to discrimination based on disability and sex and failure to accommodate. Defendants ultimately terminated Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges 16 causes of action arising from the alleged conduct as well as wage and hour claims.

II.     ARGUMENTS

      Plaintiff requests an order enforcing settlement. On August 13, 2024, the parties settled this action for $320,000 to be paid in five installments. Defendants paid the first three installments, but did not pay the full amount of the fourth installment, and failed to pay the fifth installment, leaving a balance of $50,000. Plaintiff also asks for fees and costs incurred to bring this motion as agreed by the parties.

      Defendants argue that they need additional time to pay because they are in dire financial circumstances and cannot currently pay the funds owed. Defendants hope to pay arrears and interest in July of 2025. The motion is premature and unnecessary since the parties are attempting to amend the dates for installment payments. Therefore, Plaintiff is not entitled to recover fees and costs for this motion.

      In reply, Plaintiff argues that both parties agreed to complete all payments by January 10, 2025. The parties have not signed any addenda to the agreement. Plaintiff is entitled to enforce the contract.

III.    LEGAL STANDARDS

      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.)  

IV.   DISCUSSION

      Plaintiff submits evidence of the parties’ signed settlement agreement. (Payam Aframian decl., Ex. A.) The schedule for the amount and date of each installment payment is expressly set forth. (Id. p.1, subd. 1.) The parties contemplated that the fifth and final installment would be completed by January 10, 2025. (Id. at p. 2, subd. (5).) The agreement provides for a one percent penalty on the unpaid monthly balance. (Id. at subd. 4.(4).) Paragraph 9 of the settlement agreement permits recovery of attorney’s fees and costs if the prevailing party is required to take action to enforce settlement. (Id. p. 9, subd. (9.).)

      Plaintiff establishes that the arrearages total $50,000 and added penalties for late payment of $666.67. (Aframian decl., ¶¶ 4-5.) Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable fees and costs incurred to prepare the motion. The court finds that reasonable time spent on this motion is five hours (not 10) to prepare the motion, reply, and to appear, totaling $2,500 ($500/hour x 5). Plaintiff is entitled to costs of $60.00 in filing fees.

V.   CONCLUSION

      Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff is entitled to entry of judgment of $50,666.67 and reasonable fees and costs of $2,560.00.