Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: TC028673, Date: 2023-11-28 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: TC028673 Hearing Date: November 28, 2023 Dept: A
TC028673
Olegario Hernandez v. Ezequiel Rodriguez Guzman
Tuesday,
November 28, 2023, at 8:30 a.m.
[TENTATIVE] ORDER
I.
BACKGROUND
This action
arises from Plaintiff’s purchase of real property from Defendant that did not
comply with the City of Compton’s code requirements for conversion of a
single-family dwelling into a duplex. Plaintiff filed a conditional notice of
settlement on December 13, 2017. On October 10, 2019, the Hon. Gary Y. Tanaka
granted Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to enforce settlement. The settlement was
conditioned on Defendant’s obligation to modify the property and obtain the
required permits within an allotted time period. Judge Tanaka set an order to
show cause regarding enforcement of the agreement for December 19, 2019. (See
Min. Ord. of 10/10/19.)
The OSC was
continued to January 31, 2020, when the parties stipulated that Defendant would
obtain the required permits and pay costs associated with compliance. Plaintiff
was responsible to pay all costs associated with the safety violations for the
entire property. (Min.
Ord. 1/31/20.)
On August 6, 2020, Judge Tanaka granted
Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees of $5,475.00 and costs of $169.60. The
Court dismissed the case without prejudice but retained jurisdiction to enforce
any and all terms of settlement. (Min.
Ord. 8/6/20.)
Because Defendant did not comply with the
parties’ agreement for over two years, Plaintiff made a second motion to
enforce settlement and for an award of $85,000. On January 30, 2023, this Court
granted the motion and entered judgment pursuant to the terms of the agreement
but denied Plaintiff’s request for $85,000. This Court found that the money judgment
demanded was not contemplated in the settlement agreement. (Min.
Ord. 1/30/23.)
II.
ARGUMENTS
Plaintiff
asks for an order compelling Defendant to comply with the judgment for specific
performance or to amend the judgment to include damages for $105,000. Defendant
has not complied with the parties’ settlement for over two years.
Defendant
argues that all obligations required of him by the settlement agreement have
been performed except one, which is dependent on the County of Los Angeles
issuing a variance for the square footage of the back house on the subject
property or authorizing the demolition of certain square footage. The motion is
moot, unnecessary and should be denied. Plaintiff cannot transmute the judgment
to specific performance and monetary damages. The Court already determined that
Plaintiff could not ask for damages not contemplated by the settlement
agreement.
In
reply, Plaintiff argues that Defendant admits that there are outstanding
permitting issues relating to the back house on the property, which conflicts
with defense counsel’s prior representation that Defendant fully complied with
all of his obligations. Judicial estoppel applies to disregard Defendant’s
evolving arguments in order to protect the judicial process. The Court has
authority to amend the judgment and terms and conditions for payment. The Court
has authority to compel obedience to its judgments.
III.
DISCUSSION
The
parties’ agreement articulated each parties’ obligations in furtherance of
settlement. Defendant was obligated to make necessary repairs and revisions
and/or obtain permits as directed by the Los Angeles County Zoning Department
to comply with existing violations. (Plaintiff’s Evidence, Ex. 1-1, ¶ 7.)
Defendant was responsible for those expenses and repairs. (Id.)
Defendant had until April 30, 2018, to remove any existing violations and
provide Plaintiff with proof of compliance by April 30, 2018. (Id.)
Nothing
in the Settlement Agreement provides for Plaintiff to obtain a judgment for
specific performance and/or damages for $105,000.00 in the event of Defendant’s
breach. As the Court previously stated, the Court is not authorized to modify
an express term of the settlement without the parties’ mutual consent. (Leeman
v. Adams Extract & Spice, LLC (2015) 236
Cal.App.4th 1367, 1375.)
The
court applies general contract principles when interpreting a settlement
agreement.
(Leeman at 1374.)The mutual intent of the
parties and interpretation of the contract are based on the language of the
agreement alone. (Id.) Even if the agreement appears
“toothless” in retrospect, "it is not the province of the trial court to
rewrite it and put in the teeth the complaining side now thinks it should have
had.” (Viejo
Bancorp, Inc. v. Wood (1989) 217 Cal.App.3d 200, 207.)
While the Court has the authority to
compel obedience to its judgment pursuant to Civil Procedure, section 128, the Court
entered judgment pursuant to the settlement agreement, which did not provide
for a judgment of specific performance or an award of damages in the event of
Defendant’s breach.
Plaintiff
has not demonstrated how judicial estoppel applies under the circumstances. The
principle prevents a party from asserting a position in a legal proceeding that
is contrary to a position previously taken in the same or an earlier
proceeding. (Jackson
v. County of Los Angeles (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 171, 181.)
However, the doctrine cannot be invoked where the first position was taken as a
result of ignorance or mistake. (Id. at 182.)
While Defendant believed he had complied with all of his obligations, at a
subsequent hearing he learned that he was obligated to obtain permits for the
back house for 960 sq/ft. (Decl. of Ezequiel Rodriguez Guzman, ¶ 4.)
IV.
CONCLUSION
Based
on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.