Judge Ralph C. Hofer, Case Number: 22GDCV01046, Date: 2023-08-11 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Gary S. Tchobanian filed this action alleging that in connection with the construction of an additional dwelling unit at plaintiff’s private residence in Glendale, the contractor on the project, defendants Edwin Galstanyan and EPC Commercial Plumbing, Inc., made various misrepresentations concerning the project, including its cost, that it could be started without first obtaining permits, and its completion time. Plaintiff alleges that defendants ultimately ceased work, refused to return plaintiff’s deposits or refund monies, and refused to remedy defects, so that plaintiff was forced to hire other contractors to restore the property.

On May 2, 2023, the court received a Request for Dismissal filed by plaintiff requesting that the complaint be dismissed without prejudice, with the “Court to retain jurisdiction to enforce settlement agreement per CCP section 664.6.” The dismissal was not entered.

On May 5, 2023, plaintiff filed a Stipulation for Court to Retain Jurisdiction Pursuant to CCP section 664.6, indicating the parties had entered into a written settlement agreement, and stipulating that the court retain jurisdiction pursuant to CCP section 664.6 to interpret and enforce the terms of the settlement agreement by an entry of judgment or other order, should it be necessary. The order was signed and entered on May 5, 2023.

“If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside the presence of the court...for settlement of the case,... 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.”

In this case, the parties entered into a written Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims signed by the parties outside of the presence of the court. [Hopkins Decl., Ex. A]. The matter has not yet been dismissed, and the court still has jurisdiction over the matter. In addition, the parties have filed a written stipulation agreeing that the court would retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement under CCP section 664.6.

The Second District in Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal. App.4th 793 held that a trial court may on a section 664.6 motion receive evidence, determine disputed facts and enter the terms of a settlement agreement as a judgment, but may not create the material terms of a settlement as opposed to deciding what terms the parties themselves agreed to. Weddington, at 810. See also Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial, 12:975-979.2. The trial court’s determination with respect to interpretation of the settlement agreement will not be disturbed on appeal if supported by substantial evidence. Skulnick v. Roberts Express, Inc. (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 884, 889.

The motion presents evidence that the settlement was for plaintiff to take payment of the total Settlement Amount of $51,946.00 pursuant to a payment schedule, but if defendants paid $27,000.00 by October 1, 2023, that Discounted Settlement Amount would fully satisfy the payment obligations. [Hopkins Decl., para. 4, Ex. A, Settlement Agreement, para. 2a]. The Settlement Agreement provides that if any installment after the first installment is not made on the date specified in the schedule, plaintiff shall give counsel for defendants written notice by email of failure to pay and defendants shall have five days to cure by making the missed payment. [Ex. A, Settlement Agreement, para. 2d]. The Settlement Agreement also provides that if any payment is not made within the cure period, then plaintiff is entitled to file the Stipulated Judgement with the court. [Id]. The Stipulated Judgment is to grant plaintiff an award of the full settlement amount less all payments made by defendants. [Ex. A, Settlement Agreement, para. 2c].

Plaintiff submits evidence that defendants paid the first installment, but that the next monthly payment, due on June 1, 2023, was remitted to plaintiff in the amount of $4,500 by defendant’s company check, which plaintiff deposited and was then informed by the bank that the check had been “stopped” by defendants. [Hopkins Decl. para. 6]. Plaintiff’s counsel provided defendants’ counsel written notice of the settlement payment default on June 2, 2023, which triggered the five-day right to cure period until June 7, 2023. [Hopkins Decl., para. 6, Ex. B]. Plaintiff indicates that defendants failed to cure the settlement default by June 7, 2023, and, to date, no further payments have been received by plaintiff. [Hopkins Decl., para. 6].

This showing appears to provide substantial evidence upon which the court may enter judgment as requested. There is no opposition to this motion, so no challenge to this evidence. The motion is granted and judgment entered as requested.

Motion to Enforce Settlement and Enter Judgment Pursuant to Stipulation is GRANTED pursuant to CCP section 664.6. The Court finds that parties to pending litigation stipulated to the settlement of the case in a writing signed by the parties outside the presence of the court. Judgment is therefore entered in favor of plaintiff Gary S. Tchobanian in accordance with the Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims executed by the parties on April 19, 2023 and April 21, 2023. Judgment is awarded against defendants Edwin Galstanyan and EPC Commercial Plumbing, Inc. in the sum of the agreed upon total Settlement Amount of $51,946.00, less all payments made by defendants in the sum of $4,500, for a total judgment of $47,446.00.

Please make arrangement in advance if you wish to appear via LACourtConnect/Microsoft Teams by visiting www.lacourt.org to schedule a remote appearance. Please note that LACourtConnect/Microsoft Teams offers free audio and video appearances. However, ADVANCE REGISTRATION IS REQUIRED.