Judge Randolph M. Hammock, Case 19STCV36008 2022-10-20 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiffs Miguel Rodriguez and Manuel Rodriguez brought this action against Defendants Maria Trinidad Mariscal and Ismael Rodriguez, alleging Defendants conspired to steal title to real property owned by Plaintiff Manuel Rodriguez. Defendants also collected rents from the tenants of the subject property. Plaintiffs brought the action for an accounting on the rental income, among other things. The parties filed a Notice of Settlement on May 17, 2022.

Plaintiff’s motion to enforce settlement agreement is continued to 11/21/22 at 8:30 a.m. Moving party is to file a fully executed version of what purports to be the final, binding settlement between the parties. The Court will allow the Defendants to file a timely opposition based upon the new continued date, per Code. The Plaintiffs may also file a timely reply thereto, per Code.

If the 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.

A settlement agreement in which the parties agree that the Court will retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement must be signed by the parties (not just their counsel) and filed with the Court before the action is dismissed. (MesaRHF Partners, L.P. v. City of Los Angeles (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 913, 917-918.)

“Strong public policy in favor of the settlement of civil cases gives the trial court, which approves the settlement, the power to enforce it.” (Osumi v. Sutton (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1355, 1357.) Likewise, in “ruling on a motion to enforce settlement,” the Court “necessarily has the power to resolve factual disputes relating to the agreement.” (Ibid.) Of course, this also means that it is “for the trial court to determine in the first instance whether the parties have entered into an enforceable settlement.” (Id. at 1360.)

The parties filed a Notice of Settlement on May 17, 2022. Plaintiffs now move to enforce the Settlement Agreement. Under the Agreement, “Plaintiffs ultimately agreed to release Defendants from payment of any alleged rental income they received from occupying the Subject Property in exchange for Defendants' promise to return possession of the Subject Property to Plaintiffs with the monthly maintenance expenses…no later than August 31, 2022.” (Mtn. 4: 14-20.)

Plaintiffs represent that Defendants timely vacated the premises but did not surrender the keys, and “extensively vandalized” the premises. (Mtn. 5: 4-5.) Defendants also failed make the monthly maintenance payments, resulting in an unpaid mortgage balance of $62,391.93. “As a direct result of the Defendants’ failure to keep the monthly Maintenance expenses current as promised,” Bank of America has scheduled a Foreclosure Trustee’s Sale for October 6, 2022. (Id. 5: 22-27.) Accordingly, Plaintiffs ask that the court “enforce the Parties' settlement Agreement and order Defendants to pay Plaintiffs $70,000,00 to compensate them for the outstanding monthly maintenance Expenses Plaintiffs will now need to pay the Bank of America to stop their pending foreclosure Sale.”

Plaintiffs have attached the subject “General Release and Settlement Agreement” as Exhibit A. Under the Agreement, the parties agreed that the Court would retain jurisdiction to enforce its terms. (Exh. A., “Governing Law,” ¶ 1.6.)

Notably, however, the Agreement attached as Exhibit A is unsigned. Based on a review of the court’s docket, it does not appear that either party has filed an executed version of the Agreement. Before the court can enter judgment on a settlement, the agreement must be presented “in a writing signed by the parties.” (CCP § 664.6 [emphasis added]; MesaRHF Partners, L.P., supra, 33 Cal.App.5th at 917-918.)

Accordingly, without addressing the merits, the hearing is continued to a date TBD to allow the moving party to file an executed version of what purports to be the final, binding settlement between the parties.

Given the totality of the circumstances, the Court will allow the Defendants to file a timely opposition based upon the new continued date, per Code. The Plaintiffs may also file a timely reply thereto, per Code.

FN 1 - Given the “lateness” of the Defendants’ opposition, and moreover, given this Court’s tentative ruling to continue this matter, this Court did not read or consider said opposition at this time.

Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept49@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.