Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 22STCV39360, Date: 2025-02-21 Tentative Ruling

The Court often posts its tentative several days in advance of the hearing. Please re-check the tentative rulings the day before the hearing to be sure that the Court has not revised the ruling since the time it was posted.

Please call the clerk at (213) 633-0154 by 4:00 pm. the court day before the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative.

Case Number: 22STCV39360    Hearing Date: February 21, 2025    Dept: 34

Defendants Laboratory Corporation of America and Amir Tavakoli’s Motion to Enforce Settlement and Request for Attorney’s Fees is GRANTED.  Judgment is entered against Plaintiff Simon Kheradmand.  Attorney’s fees are AWARDED in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff in the reduced amount of $1,100.00.

Background

            On December 20, 2022, Plaintiff Simon Kheradmand (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Laboratory Corporation of America and Amir Tavakoli (“Defendants”) on causes of action arising from Plaintiff’s employment with and termination by Defendants alleging causes of action for:

1.                 Discrimination Based Upon Disability (Gov. Code §12940, et seq.);

2.                 Failure To Accommodate (Gov. Code §12940(k) and (m));

3.                 Failure To Engage In The Interactive Process (Gov. Code §12926.1(e));

4.                 Harassment Based Upon Disability (Gov. Code §12940, et seq.);

5.                 Retaliation (Gov. Code §12940, et seq.);

6.                 Failure To Take All Reasonable Steps To Prevent Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation (Gov. Code §12940, et seq.);

7.                 Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; and

8.                 Wrongful Termination In Violation of Public Policy (Gov. Code §12940, et seq.)

On January 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleging causes of action for:

1.                 Discrimination Based Upon Disability (Gov. Code §12940, et seq.);

2.                 Failure To Accommodate (Gov. Code §12940(k) and (m));

3.                 Failure To Engage In The Interactive Process (Gov. Code §12926.1(e));

4.                 Harassment Based Upon Disability (Gov. Code §12940, et seq.);

5.                 Retaliation (Gov. Code §12940, et seq.);

6.                 Failure To Take All Reasonable Steps To Prevent Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation (Gov. Code §12940, et seq.); and

7.                 Wrongful Termination In Violation of Public Policy (Gov. Code §12940, et seq.)

On April 27, 2023, the court overruled Defendants’ Demurrer.

On May 8, 2024, Defendants filed an answer to Plaintiff’s FAC.

On September 9, 2024, Defendants filed a Notice of Conditional Settlement.

On November 5, 2024, Defendants filed a Motion to Enforce Settlement. On February 11, 2025, Defendants filed a Notice of Non-opposition to Defendants’ motion. No opposition or other responsive pleading has been filed.

On December 2, 2024, the court found that cases 22STCV39360 and 24STCV28866 are related assigning 22STCV39360 as the lead case.

Legal Standard

“If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside of 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, subd. (a).) 

“Section 664.6 was enacted to provide a summary procedure for specifically enforcing a settlement contract without the need for a new lawsuit.” (Weddington Prod., Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 809.) In deciding motions made under Section 664.6, judges “must determine whether the parties entered into a valid and binding settlement.” (Kohn v. Jaymar-Ruby (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1530, 1533.) 

Discussion

            Defendants contend that on September 3, 2024, the parties agreed to settle and signed a stipulation providing that Plaintiff would pay a sum of $75,000.00 in exchange for a full release of claims against Defendant Laboratory Corporation of America (“Labcorp”). (Motion, at pp. 1-2; Huey Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. A.) However, Plaintiff has refused to sign the long-form settlement agreement despite Defendants’ counsel’s attempt to resolve this issue. (Huey Decl., ¶¶ 6-11.) Defendants provides a copy of the executed stipulation. (Id., ¶ 3, Exh. A.) Defendants also contend that the stipulation allows for the recovery of attorney’s fees incurred in bringing this motion in the amount of $4,340.00. (Motion, at p. 7.)

            No opposition has been filed.

            The court finds that the statutory requirements of section 664.6 have been met. Further, Plaintiff does not oppose the motion. A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion. (CRC, Rule 8.54(c).) Defendants’ motion is therefore granted to enforce the settlement terms found in the signed stipulation.

            As to Defendants’ request for attorney’s fees, the stipulation provides in paragraph 5 that the “Stipulation for Settlement may be enforced pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6…In any proceeding to enforce this settlement agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred therein.” (Huey Decl., Exh. A.) As such, Defendants are entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees for bringing this motion. Defendants’ counsel, Gabriel M. Huey, declares to have an hourly rate of $800.00 per hour and spent 1.00 hour reviewing and revising this motion and expects to spend an additional hour reviewing the opposition brief, revising the reply brief, and attending the hearing on the motion totaling $1,600.00 in fees. (Id., ¶ 12.) Counsel Cassidy Young spent two hours preparing the motion and expect to spend another two hours reviewing the opposition, preparing a reply, and preparing for the hearing on this motion. (Id., ¶ 13.)

            The court determines that a reasonable hourly rate for Defendants’ counsel is $500.00 per hour for Counsel Gabriel M. Huey and $300.00 for Counsel Cassidy Young due to their level of experience and complexity of the matter. Additionally, as Defendants’ motion is unopposed, there is no need for an additional 3.00 hours to be spent by counsel. As such, the court awards Defendants $1,100.00 in attorney’s fees, comprised of 1.00 hours of Counsel Gabriel M. Huey’s time and 2.00 hours of  Counsel Cassidy Young’s time.

Conclusion

Defendants Laboratory Corporation of America and Amir Tavakoli’s Motion to Enforce Settlement and Request for Attorney’s Fees is GRANTED.  Judgment is entered against Plaintiff Simon Kheradmand.  Attorney’s fees are AWARDED in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff in the reduced amount of $1,100.00.