Judge: Monica Bachner, Case: 19STCV24723, Date: 2022-07-26 Tentative Ruling

Department 71: Attorneys who elect to submit on these published tentative rulings, without making an appearance at the hearing, may so notify the Court by communicating this to the Department's staff at (213) 830-0771 before the set hearing time.  See, e.g., CRC Rule 324(b).   All parties are otherwise encouraged to appear by Court Call for all matters.

Case Number: 19STCV24723    Hearing Date: July 26, 2022    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 71

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to enforce the settlement agreement is granted in the amount of $163,000. Plaintiff is entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with bringing the instant motion, to be determined by a subsequent motion.  Plaintiff is to submit a Proposed Judgment within 10 Court days.

          Plaintiff Michael Morris (“Plaintiff”) moves for an order enforcing the settlement between Plaintiff and Defendants BaronHR Security, Inc. (“BaronHR”), Fortress Worldwide, Inc. (“Fortress”), BaaronHR Group, LLC (“BHR Group”), and BaronHR, LLC (“BHR LLC”) (collectively, “Defendants”) (“Settlement”).  (Notice of Motion, pg. 2; C.C.P. §664.6.)  Specifically, Plaintiff requests the Court (1) issue an order of judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount of $163,000 pursuant to the terms of the Settlement; (2) award Plaintiff sanctions against Defendants in the amount of $350 per day for each day any portion of the remaining $163,000 remains outstanding starting from May 10, 2022, which Plaintiff asserts is the payment due date; (3) award Plaintiff 10% annual interest that shall accrue beginning on May 10, 2022; and (4) award Plaintiff reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs to be determined in a separate motion and/or memorandum of costs.  (Notice of Motion, pg. 2.)

          Background

          On July 19, 2019, Plaintiff filed his complaint against Defendants for discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination in connection with Plaintiff’s employment and Plaintiff’s claims were submitted to binding arbitration.  On March 11, 2022, the parties entered into a Confidential Settlement Agreement and Release of All Claims (“Settlement”) to resolve Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants in exchange for payment to Plaintiff of $250,000.  (Decl. of Stratos ¶2, Exh. A.)  The Settlement required Defendants to pay, within 60 days, either the entire $250,000 or if any portion of arbitrator fees were refunded, the settlement amount less such refund.  (Decl. of Stratos ¶4, Exh. A.) On March 16, 2020, the arbitration service issued a check for $87,000 to Plaintiff reflecting the refundable portion of the arbitrator fees which was accompanied with a letter noting the payment was made as part of the settlement proceeds resulting in an outstanding amount of $163,000.  (Decl. of Stratos ¶5, Exh. B.)  On March 17, 2022, Defendants executed the Settlement Agreement. (Decl. of Stratos ¶5, Exh. A.) On June 8, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant motion, as of which date, he had not received the $163,000 outstanding. (Decl. of Stratos ¶6.)  Defendants did not file an opposition to the instant motion by the deadline for filing; however, on July 22, 2022, Defendants filed a Notice of Non-Opposition. 

          Motion to Enforce Settlement

          C.C.P. §664.6 provides, as follows: “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.”

          Plaintiff submitted evidence Plaintiff and Defendants entered into the Settlement, which was signed by all the parties by March 17, 2022.  (Decl. of Stratos, Exh. A.)  Pursuant to the Settlement, Defendants agreed to pay Plaintiff $250,000 within 60 days after Defendants’ receipt of an executed W-9 form from Plaintiff’s Counsel.  (Decl. of Stratos, Exh. A, pg. 2.)  Plaintiff submitted evidence that on March 11, 2022, Plaintiff signed the Settlement and delivered it and an executed W-9 to Defendants’ counsel.  (Decl. of Stratos ¶2.) Plaintiff asserts the payment due date was, accordingly, 60 days after delivery of the executed W-9, on May 10, 2022.  (Motion, pg. 3.) The parties agreed the Settlement would be enforceable in accordance with C.C.P. §664.6 and that the Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce it.  (Decl. of Stratos, Exh. A, pg. 8.)  Plaintiff submitted evidence Defendants have failed to perform under the Settlement.  (Decl. of Stratos ¶7.)  Accordingly, Plaintiff submitted evidence Defendants breached the Settlement, and Plaintiff is entitled to an order enforcing the Settlement and entering judgment against Defendants.

In their Notice of Non-Opposition, Defendants concede they have not been able to pay Plaintiff the remaining amount owed under the Settlement and do not oppose the relief sought by Plaintiff, but request the Court exercise its inherent powers of issuing fair relief under the circumstances including a reasonable amount of attorneys’ fees.  (Non-Opposition, pg. 2.)  Defendants assert they faced recent changes within their finance administration that have resulted in unexpected delays in effectuating payment, which they had been trying to compel on an expedited basis.  (Non-Opposition, pg. 2.)

The Court notes Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $350 per day against Defendants for their failure to pay the amount owed by the due date pursuant to the “other relief” provision in the Settlement.  However, Plaintiff does not cite to the Settlement providing for the award of such “other relief,” or any support for his assertion that the amount requested is to be calculated from the Due Date and/or should be equal to $350 per day.  A review of the Settlement suggests Plaintiff bases this request on Section 6.0, which provides as follows: “In the event that any Party shall institute any action or proceeding against any other Party to enforce the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing Party shall be entitled to recover their expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, in addition to any other relief to which the Party is found entitled.”  (Decl. of Sartos, Exh. A, pg. 7, emphasis added.)  [The Court notes Section 13.0, which addresses the Court’s jurisdiction in enforcing the Settlement and the basis for the instant motion does not include the phrase “other relief.”]  Here, the Court finds Plaintiff is not entitled to the daily monetary sanctions requested as “other relief” in connection with enforcing the Settlement.  Plaintiff also requests an award of interest in the amount of 10% annually (compounding) accruing as of the Due Date; however, Plaintiff does not cite to a Settlement provision that provides for such an award.  Accordingly, the Court declines to include this requested relief in the judgment.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to enforce the Settlement against Defendants is granted in the amount of $163,000.

          Attorneys’ Fees

As the prevailing party, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in enforcing the Settlement Agreement.  The parties agreed that the prevailing party in any action to enforce any term of the Settlement shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.  (Decl. of Stratos, Exh. A, pg. 8.)  In light of the non-opposition to the motion, Plaintiff is entitled to attorneys’ fees in a reasonable amount, which will be determined by a subsequent motion.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to enforce the Settlement and enter judgment against Defendants in the amount of $163,000 is granted.  Plaintiff is entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with bringing the instant motion and Plaintiff, which will be determined by a subsequent motion.  Plaintiff is ordered to submit a Proposed Judgment within 10 Court days.  

Dated:  July _____, 2022

Hon. Monica Bachner

Judge of the Superior Court