Revina Thomas v. I&K Properties, et al.

MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

 

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Indrasain Ramsundar, Rebecca Arellano, I&K Properties, and I&K Trust

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff Revina Thomas (unopposed) 

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

Plaintiff Revina Thomas resided at 13608 Chadron Street in Hawthorne, CA, and Defendants were the property’s owners, managers, or agents of said owners or managers. Plaintiff’s mother, the now deceased Sharlene Thomas, entered into an annual lease for the property sometime in 2022. Following her mother’s death, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants forcibly entered the premises, changed the locks, and denied Plaintiff reentry because her name is not on the lease. Plaintiff brings causes of action for (1) forcible entry, (2) forcible detainer, (3) breach of implied covenant of quiet enjoyment, and (4) wrongful eviction.

Defendants now move for an order enforcing the parties’ settlement agreement pursuant to CCP § 664.6.  Plaintiff did not oppose.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants’ motion to enforce the settlement agreement is GRANTED. 

Pursuant to the Settlement, Defendants are awarded $2,040.00 in reasonable attorney’s fees.  Judgement is to be entered in favor of Defendant and against the Plaintiff in said amount.

Defendants are to file a [Proposed] Judgment consistent with this ruling.

DISCUSSION:

Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement Per CCP § 664.6

A. Legal Standard

CCP § 664.6 provides: 

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.

(CCP § 664.6 [bold emphasis and underlining added].)

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.)

 

B. Analysis

Defendants now move to enforce the Settlement Agreement executed by all parties between September 12, 2022, and September 15, 2022. Under that Agreement, Plaintiff agreed to (a) remove all personal property remaining in the Premises and (b) file a dismissal of the lawsuit, with prejudice, by September 30, 2022. (See Lishner Decl., Exh. A.)

Defendants contend Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Settlement Agreement by, among other things, “failing and refusing to completely vacate the premises…and failing to file a Dismissal with Prejudice in this matter.” (Mtn. 4: 9-12.) A settlement agreement is a contract, and the legal principles which apply to contracts generally apply to settlement contracts. (Weddington Prods., Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal. App. 4th 793, 810.) 

Defendants attach the Settlement Agreement as Exhibit 1 which contains the signatures of all parties to the agreement, including that of Plaintiff. Pursuant to the Agreement’s express terms, Plaintiff was represented by counsel when executing the agreement. (Lishner Decl., Exh. A., ¶ 19 [stating “Plaintiff has been represented by Tara Heckard-Bryant, Attorney at Law”].)

Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the motion.  The motion’s attached proof of service shows service on Plaintiff electronically on January 17, 2023. [FN 1]

Thus, absent any opposition, this court finds that the Agreement signed by all parties constitutes an enforceable settlement agreement. 

Accordingly, the motion to enforce the settlement agreement is GRANTED. The case is ordered dismissed with prejudice.

C. Attorney’s Fees

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, each party waived the right to attorney fees and costs, “except in the event that a party is required to obtain relief from the Court to enforce the provisions of this Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release of All Claims. In such event, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover his or its costs and reasonable attorney's fees incurred in the obtaining such relief.” (Lishner Decl., Exh. A., ¶ 24.)

Defendants seek $2,820.00 in attorney’s fees incurred in bringing the instant motion.  This includes 2.4 hours to prepare the motion, 0.7 hours to attend the January 6, 2023, Case Management Conference, 0.6 hours to attend the November 22, 2022, Case Management Conference, and an estimated 1.0 hour to appear at the hearing on the instant motion.  This amounts to a total of 4.7 hours billed at a rate of $600.00 per hour.  Counsel attests this time and rate is reasonable based on his “more than 50 years” of experience practicing law. (Lishner Decl. ¶ 1.)

This court agrees that the executed Settlement Agreement permits the moving parties to recover their reasonable attorney’s fees.  This court also finds that counsel’s hourly rate is reasonable and consistent with counsel’s experience and the prevailing rates in the Los Angeles area. 

However, Plaintiff cites no authority allowing recovery of fees incurred in attending the Case Management Conferences on November 22 and January 6, 2023.  These hearings occurred before Defendants filed and served the motion to enforce settlement and were not directly incurred in enforcing the settlement agreement.  To be fair, however, this court appreciates that this time could have been avoided had Plaintiff complied with the terms of the settlement. Be that as it may, this time is not recoverable under the Agreement. 

Accordingly, Defendants are awarded $2,040.00 in reasonable attorney’s fees. This reflects 2.4 hours to prepare the motion plus one estimated hour to attend the hearing on same, billed at the rate of $600 per hour (3.4 x $600.00 = $2,040.00).

Defendants are to file a [Proposed] Judgment consistent with this ruling.

Moving party to give notice, unless waived.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FN 1 - Plaintiff was represented by attorney Tara Heckard-Bryant from the time of filing the Complaint through executing the settlement.  Plaintiff filed a substitution of attorney form on November 2, 2022, indicating she was proceeding in pro per.    

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.