Judge Randolph M. Hammock, Case Number: BC697199, Date: 2024-09-05 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiffs Rodney Williams and Susan Njeri brought this action against Defendant Esperance Mapendo, alleging that Defendant made material misrepresentations regarding the profitability of her businesses when selling them to Plaintiffs.

On February 25, 2022, the court received a Notice of Settlement. On June 1, 2022, the parties stipulated that the court would retain jurisdiction under CCP 664.6 to enforce the terms of the settlement.

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement is GRANTED. Judgment is entered in the NET amount of $60,900 plus interest in the amount of $12,484.50. [FN 2]

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 court ruling on a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 must determine whether the parties entered into a valid and binding settlement. [Citations]. A settlement is enforceable under section 664.6 only if the parties agreed to all material settlement terms.” (Hines v. Lukes (2008) 167 Cal. App. 4th 1174, 1182.) “The court ruling on the motion may consider the parties' declarations and other evidence in deciding what terms the parties agreed to,” and “[i]f the court determines that the parties entered into an enforceable settlement, it should grant the motion and enter a formal judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.” (Id.)

“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.)

Here, Plaintiffs have demonstrated that the parties entered into a Settlement and Release of Claims Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) on January 15, 2022. (See Kim Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. A.) Under the Settlement, Defendant agreed to pay $105,000 in full satisfaction of Plaintiffs’ claims. (Settlement, ¶ 2.) Payment of the Settlement was to include an initial payment of $30,000 on or before January 15, 2022, followed by monthly installments to recover the remaining balance. (Id.)

The Agreement also stated that “Plaintiff [sic] [FN 3] agrees that interest of Ten Percent (10%) (the “Interest”) shall be charged and accruing on a simple interest basis for any amounts unpaid that is not received by the Plaintiffs on any of the Monthly Due Dates.” (Id. ¶ 2(c).)

In the event of default, the parties agreed to a Stipulated Judgment “for an aggregate amount of One Hundred and Five Thousand US Dollars US Dollars ($105,000) and any accrued Interest, less any payments of the Settled Amounts received by Plaintiffs.” (Id. ¶ 8(a).)

Plaintiffs now represent that Defendant made the initial $30,000 payment due under the terms of the Settlement Agreement in January of 2022, but then paid only $14,100 total thereafter. (Kim Decl. ¶ 9.) “Plaintiffs did not receive payments from Mapendo in the months of July, November, or December of 2022 and Plaintiffs only received $4,700 over the entirety of 2023 and have not received any further settlement payments from Mapendo since June of 2023.” (Id.)

Accordingly, a total of $60,900 remains due and owing from Defendant Mapendo to Plaintiffs under the terms of the Settlement. Thus, Plaintiffs ask the court to enter judgment in the amount of (1) the $60,900 outstanding principal, (2) prejudgment interest since July 1, 2022 (the first date Mapendo defaulted on the Settlement Agreement by not paying the amount due in July of 2022) in the amount of $12,484.50, and (3) $4,237.44 in attorney’s fees.

Here, based on the evidence presented, the court finds that Defendant has defaulted under the Settlement, and that $60,900 plus interest remains due and owing.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement is GRANTED. Judgment is entered in the net amount of $60,900 plus interest in the amount of $12,484.50, plus attorney’s fees of $2,500.

The Settlement provides that “[i]f a Party breaches any of the terms of this Agreement, including the post-termination obligations, to the extent authorized by California law, then said breaching Party will be responsible for payment of all reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs that the non-breaching Party incurred in the course of enforcing the terms of the Agreement, including demonstrating the existence of a breach and any other contract enforcement efforts.” (Settlement 12 [emphasis added].)

Counsel’s declaration does not include any accounting of the time spent, nor counsel’s billing rates. Based on the circumstances, the requested fees appear to be somewhat excessive.

Be that as it may, based on the totality of the circumstances, the court awards $2,500 as the total amount of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs recoverable in connection with this motion.

Judge of the Superior Court

FN 1 - Plaintiffs properly served the moving papers on Defendant by mail and email on July 25, 2024. (See Proof of Service.)

FN 2 - The Judgment should reflect the gross amount of the initial settlement ($105,000), as well as all partial payments thereto.

FN 3 - This presumably should have stated that Defendant agrees

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.