Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles 

Department 78 

¿ 

 

I. BACKGROUND 

On April 11, 2022, plaintiff RH Lemorande (“Plaintiff”) filed this breach of contract action against defendants Joseph Powell, et al., alleging that the property rented to Plaintiff, commonly known as 1245 North Crescent Height Blvd, Unit B, Los Angeles, CA 90046, suffered from habitability issues. Plaintiff is in pro per. 

Defendants Joseph Powell & The Josephine Powell Trust (collectively “Defendants”) move to enforce the Settlement Agreement and General Release of All Claims and Rights (“Settlement Agreement”) pursuant to CCP § 664.6. Defendants assert that Plaintiff, a California attorney representing himself in pro per, seeks to disavow the executed Settlement Agreement, despite having participated in revising the terms of the Settlement Agreement prior to its execution. 

On July 31, 2024, Plaintiff filed an untimely opposition.  

 

II. LEGAL STANDARD 

Pursuant to CCP § 664.6: “If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside the presence of the court or orally before the court, for settlement of the case, or part thereof, the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement. If requested by the parties, the court may retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement.”¿ 

For purposes of this section, a writing is signed by a party if it is signed by any of the following:¿ 

(1) The party.¿ 

(2) An attorney who represents the party.¿ 

(3) If the party is an insurer, an agent who is authorized in writing by the insurer to sign on the insurer's behalf.¿ 

(CCP §664.6(b).)¿¿ 

Strict compliance with the statutory requirements is necessary before a court can enforce a settlement agreement under this statute. (Sully-Miller Contracting Co. v. Gledson/Cashman Construction, Inc. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 30, 37.) Thus, to enforce a written settlement agreement under CCP section 664.6, the following three elements must be met: (1) the parties must have come to a meeting of the minds on all material points; (2) there must be a writing that contains the material terms of the agreement; and (3) the writing must be signed by the parties. (Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 797-98.)¿ 

“If no time is specified for the performance of an act required to be performed, a reasonable time is allowed.”¿ (Civ. Code, § 1657; see also Patel v. Liebermensch (2008) 45 Cal.4th 344, 352, fn. omitted [“In the absence of a specified time of payment, a reasonable period is allowable under Civil Code section 1657.”].)¿ 

 

III. DISCUSSION 

Here, the Settlement Agreement provides in pertinent part:  

“This Settlement Agreement and General Release (hereinafter “AGREEMENT”), is entered into and effective the date last signed below, by R.H. Lemorande; (“PLAINTIFF”) and between Joseph Powell; Josephine Powell (deceased); Josephine Powell Estate; and The Josephine Powell Trust; (“DEFENDANTS”)...based on the CLAIMS made in the lawsuit filed on April 11, 2022. PLAINTIFFS and RELEASEES are collectively referred to herein as the “SETTLING PARTIES.” 

… 

As full and final consideration for the Releases contained herein, PLAINTIFF agrees to accept payment from DEFENDANTS, by their insurance carrier, in the total sum of Sixty Five Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($65,000.00) (“SETTLEMENT PAYMENT”) 

… 

The SETTLING PARTIES agree that upon the receipt of the SETTLEMENT PAYMENT, a signed dismissal with prejudice, prepared by Counsel for DEFENDANTS, and approved by PLAINTIFF, shall be filed with the Court, dismissing the ACTION filed by PLAINTIFF, with prejudice. Counsel for PLAINTIFF shall file the Request for Dismissal with the Court within 10 days of receipt and clearance of the funds of the SETTLEMENT PAYMENT. 

… 

The SETTLING PARTIES agree that each has the right to enforce this AGREEMENT, or any provision thereof, by filing any appropriate motion or proceeding, including without limitation, a motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 664.6, in the appropriate department of the Los Angeles County Superior Court or in any Court where the ACTION subsequently may have its venue. The SETTLING PARTIES further agree, acknowledge and stipulate that the Court in the ACTION shall retain jurisdiction over the SETTLING PARTIES to determine any motion brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 664.6. The parties further agree that should a separate stipulation and order be necessary, the SETTLING PARTIES agree to execute such a document.” 

(Mot. Exh. A.)  

The Agreement submitted by Defendants was both initialed and signed by Plaintiff. (Ibid.) Although Defendants did not sign the Settlement Agreement, Defendants are the direct beneficiaries, and their signatures are not required. (See Provost v. Regents of University of California (App. 4 Dist. 2011) 135 Cal.Rptr.3d 591 [Statutory procedure to enforce stipulation for settlement does not require that the agreement be executed by every party to the action who benefits from it].) Further, the agreement contains all material terms for the settlement, and Defendants have not been dismissed. (Weddington Productions, supra, 60 Cal. App. 4th at 797-98.)¿Accordingly, the statutory requirements of Section 664.6 have been met. 

Plaintiff makes various arguments against the Settlement Agreement, but concedes he had in fact accepted $65,000 to settle the matter due to his immediate need for funds. Plaintiff also concedes that he was aware of the Medicare issue; nothing forced Plaintiff to sign the Settlement Agreement prior to him obtaining documentation from Medicare regarding the amount of liens. Just because Plaintiff will not receive more out of the settlement as he subjectively anticipated, after paying off the liens, is not grounds to repudiate a valid contract. Additionally, there is no support that there was no meeting of the minds of the material terms, considering Plaintiff actively participated in the revisions to the Settlement Agreement. There is no evidence of a lack of good faith at the time Plaintiff executed the Settlement Agreement. 

In terms of attorney fees, Defendants seek $855 for 2 hours preparing the motion, and an anticipated 1.5 hours to prepare a reply and 1 hour to attend the hearing, at an hourly rate of $190. The plain language of CCP § 664.6 vests the Court with the power to enforce the full of the terms of the settlement as long as strict compliance with the statutory requirements have been met, as it has here. (See Leeman v. Adams Extract & Spice, LLC (2015) 236 Cal. App. 4th 1367 [Court enforced settlement which included a stipulated award of $72,500 for attorney fees and costs, and the court was not permitted to modify the existing settlement agreement by reducing the award of attorney fees and costs without the mutual consent of the parties].) Here, the Settlement Agreement, at paragraph 12, plainly sets forth a clause for attorneys’ fees: “In the event of litigation in connection with or arising from the subject matter of this Release, the prevailing party in such dispute shall be entitled to recover all costs and expenses incurred by such party in connection thereto, including its reasonable attorneys’ fees.” (Mot. Exh. A.) Because no reply was filed, the Court finds that the reasonable attorneys’ fees to be $570 for 2 hours in preparing the motion, and 1 hour to attend the hearing, at the reasonable requested rate of $190 per hour. 

 

IV. CONCLUSION 

Pursuant to CCP § 664.6, Defendants’ motion is GRANTED. Judgment is entered against Defendants in the total amount of $65,000.00 as a full and final settlement of all claims against Defendants.  

Additionally, Defendant request for attorneys’ fees is GRANTED in the amount of $570.00.  

 

Moving Party is ordered to give notice. 

 

DATED: August 7, 2024 

__________________________ 

Hon. Michelle C. Kim 

Judge of the Superior Court 

 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement. 

• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at SMCDEPT78@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number. The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting. 

• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument. You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue. 

• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.