Judge: Monica Bachner, Case: 19STCV27323, Date: 2023-02-27 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: 19STCV27323    Hearing Date: February 27, 2023    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 71

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiffs Catherine Hornstein, Christine Brodeur, and Randy Brodeur’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement is GRANTED.  

          Plaintiffs Catherine Hornstein (“Plaintiff Catherine”), Christine Brodeur (“Plaintiff Christine”), and Randy Brodeur (“Plaintiff Randy”), in their capacities as individuals and Trustees of the Patricia A. Colby Trust, (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) move for an Order entering judgment, in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendant Juan Puga Suarez (“Defendant Suarez”), pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement signed by the parties on approximately August 8, 2020, and pursuant to the legal authority enumerated within Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6.) 

          Background

          The present action arises from the purported conversion of assets belonging to the Patricia A. Colby Trust (hereinafter, “Trust”).  The Trust was established on approximately February 17, 2011 by Patricia A. Colby (“Ms. Colby”), a teacher and administrator with the Los Angeles Unified School District.  The Trust included various assets, including, but not limited to, a single family dwelling in the City of San Pedro (“San Pedro Property”), a single family dwelling in the City of Wilmington (“Wilmington Property”), one multi-unit apartment building in the City of San Pedro (‘San Pedro Apartments”), and approximately $1 million in cash assets.  According to the terms of the Trust, the Trust assets were to be distributed as follows subsequent to Ms. Colby’s death: (a) A gift of Ms. Colby’s tangible personal property to her neice, Plaintiff Christine; (b) A gift of the Wilmington Property to Ms. Colby’s husband, Defendant Suarez; (c) The sale of the San Pedro Apartments; (d) A gift of $300,000 to various charities; and (e) Ms. Colby’s husband, Defendant Suarez, is permitted to reside in the San Pedro Property until his death.  Plaintiff Christine (Ms. Colby’s niece), Plaintiff Catherine (Ms. Colby’s sister), and Plaintiff Randy (the husband of Ms. Colby’s niece, Plaintiff Christine) were to serve as Trustees of the Trust.  On approximately January 24, 2019, Ms. Colby passed away.  Subsequently, Ms. Colby’s surviving spouse, Defendant Suarez, purportedly converted approximately $520,000 of the cash assets within the Trust, taking possession of the monetary funds as his own, and furthermore, took possession of various personal tangible items, including jewelry and family mementos that were intended to be conveyed to Plaintiff Christine under the terms of the Trust.

On August 1, 2019, Plaintiffs initiated the present action by filing a Complaint against Defendant Suarez.  Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges the following causes of action against Defendant Suarez: (1) Conversion; (2) Unjust Enrichment; (3) Constructive Trust; (4) Accounting; (5) Deceit; and (6) Declaratory and Injunctive Relief.

On October 13, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a Request for Dismissal and Retention of Jurisdiction Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 664.6 and [Proposed] Order Thereon (“Request for Dismissal and Retention of Jurisdiction”).  The Request for Dismissal and Retention of Jurisdiction indicates, on approximately August 8, 2020, Plaintiffs and Defendants entered into a settlement agreement, which is attached as Exhibit A to the filed-document.  (Request for Dismissal and Retention for Jurisdiction, filed October 13, 2020.)  The Request for Dismissal and Retention of Jurisdiction additionally indicates the parties have stipulated to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint as a result of the parties’ settlement, and have, furthermore, stipulated that the Court should retain jurisdiction of the action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.  (Ibid.) 

Additionally on October 13, 2020, this Court signed the [Proposed] Order included within the Request for Dismissal and Retention of Jurisdiction, effectively dismissing Plaintiffs’ Complaint, with prejudice, and retaining jurisdiction for purposes of enforcing the parties’ settlement agreement.

On May 17, 2022, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement.  Plaintiffs continued the hearing until February 27, 2023 upon Defendant’s counsel’s representation that they were filing a conservatorship petition and filing a notice of related case.  No such notice has been filed. Subsequently, on February 10, 2023, Defendant Suarez filed an Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion.  Thereafter, on February 17, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a Reply.

          Legal Standard—Code of Civil Procedure Section 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.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6.) 

          Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement

          Plaintiffs presently move for an Order enforcing the settlement agreement entered between Plaintiffs and Defendant Suarez on approximately August 8, 2020, on the ground Defendant Suarez has failed to comply with the terms therein.  In pertinent part, the settlement agreement reached between the parties provides, Defendant Suarez may reside at the San Pedro Property without the payment of rent so long as Defendant Suarez provides a medical certification verifying Defendant Suarez is capable of living alone in the San Pedro Property, bi-annually, on January 1^st and August 1^st of every year.  (Brodeur Decl., Ex. B at p. 2 [Settlement Agreement].)  Specifically, the relevant terms of the settlement agreement are articulated in full below:

2.       Terms of Settlement.

A.      REAL PROPERTY UTILIZED BY JUAN DURING LIFETIME OR CONVEYED TO JUAN

1.       781 WEST 30TH STREET, SAN PEDRO, CA 90731 (“SAN PEDRO PROPERTY”)

i.  Consistent with Section 16.1 of the Second Amendment and Restatement of the Trust dated February 17, 2011 (“Amendment”), Juan may live in the San Pedro Property without payment of rent.  The Trust will pay the mortgage, taxes and expenses directly related to the general maintenance and upkeep of the San Pedro Property.  Juan will be responsible for any personal expenses such as utilities, cable and television, and will ensure that these bills are in his name only (i.e., they will not include Patricia Colby, the Trust, Trustees of the Trust or the Executors of the Will). Juan will be responsible for paying his personal taxes (the Trust will file 2018 and 2019 returns and pay the personal taxes for Patricia).

ii. Juan will provide a medical certification bi-annually not later than on January 1 and August 1 of each calendar year verifying that Juan is capable of living alone.

(Brodeur Decl., Ex. B at p. 2 [Settlement Agreement].)  Relevantly, Plaintiffs purportedly insisted on the provision requiring Defendant Suarez’s submission of a medical certification verifying his capability of living alone because Defendant Suarez is approximately ninety (90) years old and suffers from dementia and Alzheimer’s Disease.  (Id., ¶ 5.)  Plaintiffs represent inclusion of the above-provision would ensure Defendant Suarez would not be subject to physical injury in the San Pedro Property and, furthermore, cause damage to the San Pedro Property.  (Mot., at p. 1:8-11.) 

          Plaintiffs contend Defendant Suarez is in present breach of the settlement agreement because, while Defendant Suarez has previously provided the requisite medical certification on January 1, 2022 and prior to such date, Defendant Suarez has failed to provide the required medical certification on August 1, 2022 and, thereafter, on January 1, 2023.  (Supplemental Brodeur Decl., ¶ 2 [declaring, Defendant Suarez “was required to provide the trust with medical certifications that document his ability to live alone in the residence owned by the Trust and located at 781 West 30 Street, San Pedro, California 9073.  Thee certifications were due on August 1, 2022, and on January 1, 2023.  However, the Trust has not received any such certifications.”].)  Plaintiffs presently move for a Court Order enforcing the relevant term of the settlement agreement and requiring Defendant Suarez to submit the requisite medical certification ensuring he is capable of living alone in the San Pedro Property.  In the event Defendant Suarez is incapable of living alone, as Plaintiffs’ contend a recent letter from Kaiser Permanente suggests, Plaintiffs request that this Court require Defendant Suarez to obtain an in-home caregiver, or forfeit the right to reside within the San Pedro Property.  (Mot., at p. 9:21-28 [Plaintiffs request the Court “enter judgment against Defendant finding that: the Trust shall have no further obligation to allow Defendant to live in or have any access to the San Pedro Trust residence unless he obtain live-in medical care, or in the alternative, that the matter be referred to Adult Protective Services and the Public Guardian for either professional in-home care, and/or transfer to an assisted living facility.”]; Brodeur Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. D [a letter from Kaiser Permanente issued on March 25, 2022, stating “Juan Puga [Suarez] is followed by Kaiser Permanente Southbay Memory Clinic. Juan Puga was seen in clinic on 2/23/2022, for follow up on Alzheimer’s Disease.  Juan Puga previously participated in the Mini-Mental State Exam and scored 21/30 (less than 26 is below average) on 12/28/2021.  Juan Puga does not have decision-making capacity for legal, medical or financial related matters.”].)

          The Court notes Defendant Suarez does not provide any evidence, whatsoever, demonstrating he has complied with the terms of the settlement agreement and provided the requisite medical certification to the Trust on August 1, 2022 and January 1, 2023. 

          Plaintiffs are entitled to an Order enforcing the settlement agreement against Defendant Suarez, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6.)  Plaintiffs have complied with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 by demonstrating the existence of a settlement agreement signed by Plaintiffs and Defendant Suarez, and furthermore, demonstrating Defendant Suarez has failed to comply with the terms of the settlement agreement as they relate to the San Pedro Property.  Plaintiffs have submitted an unredacted copy of the subject settlement agreement filed with the Court on October 13, 2020, which unequivocally includes the signature of Defendant Suarez.  (Brodeur Decl., Ex. B at p. 11 [Defendant Suarez signature page].)  Furthermore, Plaintiffs have demonstrated Defendant Suarez has breached the settlement agreement by failing to provide the requisite medical certification on August 1, 2022 and January 1, 2023.  (Supplemental Brodeur Decl., ¶ 2 [Reply declaration].)  Accordingly, the Court concludes Plaintiffs have demonstrated compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 and, therefore, judgment may be entered enforcing the settlement agreement.

          Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes Plaintiffs Catherine Hornstein, Christine Brodeur, and Randy Brodeur’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement may be properly GRANTED.

Dated:  February 27, 2023

Hon. Monica Bachner

Judge of the Superior Court