Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 24CMCV00444, Date: 2024-10-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24CMCV00444    Hearing Date: October 22, 2024    Dept: A

24CMCV00444 Roland Hawkins II v. Started From the Bottom, Inc., et al.

Tuesday, October 24, 2024, at 8:30 a.m.

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

      This action arises from claims for breach of contract and fraud  arising from the purchase of real property. Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement on July 24, 2024. (Notc.)

      Plaintiff moves for an order to enforce the July 24, 2024, settlement agreement, wherein Defendants agreed to pay Plaintiff $5,000, release escrow funds of $108,865.37, and cancel escrow instructions. (Mot. Ex. 1.) Defendants failed to comply with the terms of settlement despite Plaintiff’s attempts to contact Defendants.

      Plaintiff timely filed the motion my mail and electronic service. Defendants did not file an opposition to the motion.

      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.)

      The court finds that the parties entered into a settlement agreement that was signed by all interested parties. (Mot., Ex. 1.) The proposed judgment requests findings that Defendants breached the agreement. However, as stated above, the court’s power is limited to determining the existence of a valid agreement and enter a judgment pursuant to those terms. (Greisman v. FCA US, LLC (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 1310 [“If the court determines that the parties entered into an enforceable settlement, it should grant the motion and enter a formal judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.”].)  Accordingly, the proposed order shall include only those findings.

      Plaintiff requests an award of costs which is permitted absent a specific agreement permitting such recovery in the event of a default. (Berti v. Santa Barbara Beach Properties (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 70, 75 [Costs are incident to judgment and “may be awarded absent an express agreement of the parties."].)

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