Hsiang Ling Liou v. Anthony De La Sota

MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AND TO ENTER JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO C.C.P. SECTION 664.6

 

MOVING PARTY: Defendant and Cross-Complainant Anthony De La Sota  [FN 1] 

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff Hsiang Ling Liou

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS

Plaintiff Hsiang Ling Liou brings this action against Defendant Anthony De La Sota for (1) Nuisance, (2) Trespass, and (3) Negligence.  Plaintiff and Defendant own adjacent real properties in Los Angeles.  Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s property utilizes a concrete walkway, roof eaves, and an air conditioning unit, that encroach on Plaintiff’s Property.  Plaintiff has asked Defendant to remove the encroachments so that Plaintiff can construct a new fence on the property line for Plaintiffs Property and develop her property with a new house; Defendant refuses.

On November 21, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement of Entire Case.

Defendant/Cross-Complaint De Le Sota now moves to enforce a settlement and enter judgment pursuant to C.C.P. section 664.6. Plaintiff opposed.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant’s Motion to Enforce Settlement (as well as each “joinder” thereto) are GRANTED.  A judgment will be entered as requested, which will include an order that the Plaintiff is to execute all documents necessary to effectuate the easement within 14-days of the entry of judgment.  The request for appointment of an Elisor at this time is denied without prejudice.

Defendant De La Sota’s request for attorney’s fees is GRANTED IN FULL.  These awarded fees ($7,012.50) are to be awarded as a credit against the amount owed to Plaintiff by said defendant under the settlement and shall be so reflected in the judgment.

Defendant De La Sota is ordered to file and serve a [Proposed] Judgment consistent with this Ruling, and notice of this Ruling to all parties. 

DISCUSSION:

Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement Per CCP § 664.6

A. Analysis

Defendant and Cross-Complainant Anthony De La Sota  moves the court for an order enforcing the terms of a settlement agreement entered into between the parties.  The moving parties bring this motion under CCP § 664.6, which 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.)

“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 moving parties represent that the parties mediated the matter in November 2023. (Kassouni Decl. ¶ 3.) As a result, the case settled in its entirety. (Id.) Thereafter, the parties executed a signed Settlement and Release Agreement. (Id., Exh. 1.) The Settlement provides, in relevant part, that Plaintiff Liou will execute a written exclusive easement granting De La Lota and his successors-in-interest exclusive use of land. (Kassouni Decl., Exh. A, ¶ 3.1) In exchange, De La Sota and the other parties will pay Liou the sum of $45,000. (Id.) 

On November 21, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement of Entire Case. (See id., Exh. 2.) Plaintiff does not dispute that the mediation ended with a settlement. (See Opp. 3: 16-18 [“After an all-day Mediation Hearing, the parties had reached a settlement”].) 

In her opposition, Plaintiff contends, however, that she revoked the settlement on December 13, 2023. As of that date, Plaintiff “had not received a fully executed settlement agreement” nor “payment of the $45,000.00 settlement amount.” (Id.) Plaintiff asserts there was a “failure of consideration” because Defendants did not present the easement to Plaintiff until June 27, 2024, “over six (6) months after the Mediation Hearing took place, [which] is simply unreasonable…” (Opp. 7: 19-24.) 

On December 13, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel, Edward Yim, sent an email to counsel for all parties stating:

It has been almost one month since the Mediation was conducted in this case. [¶] As of today, I have not received neither the fully executed settlement agreement nor payment of the settlement amount from any party. I have no choice but to conclude that the settlement will not be finalized. [¶] Therefore, I will be asking the Court to put the case back on the court's calendar and I will be requesting a trial date. (Reply Kassouni Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. A.) 

This email, however, does not evince a clear revocation of the settlement. At most, Mr. Yim expressed disappointment with the speed of matters and threatened to “put the case back on the court’s calendar” in an attempt to move things along. 

Lest there be any doubt, two weeks after sending that email, Mr. Yim signed the Settlement himself and “approved as to form” on December 29, 2023 (See Reply Kasouni Decl. ¶ 5, Exh. C.) If Mr. Yim truly believed Plaintiff had revoked the settlement before then, why would he sign it? The answer is self-evident. 

In addition, at the October 28, 2024 OSC re: dismissal, counsel in attendance (including Mr. Yim) “indicate[d] that the case is settled but require more time to fully execute the agreement.” (See 10/28/2024 Minute Order.) Therefore, there is no merit to Plaintiff’s manufactured contention that she revoked the settlement.

Plaintiff has also taken the position that she should be entitled to receive the $45,000 payment before having the easement signed and recorded. But that is not what Plaintiff agreed to. Rather, the Settlement provides that the settlement payments “are to be received by [Plaintiff’s counsel] within 21 days of receipt by the parties of the recorded written exclusive easement.” (Kassouni Decl., Exh. A, ¶ 3.1.) In other words, the easement must be recorded prior to the payment. 

Plaintiff has indicated that she fears proceeding in this order because Defendants could presumably not make the required payment after she signs and records the easement. In that hypothetical scenario, the solution is simple: this court can simply extinguish the easement. [FN 2]  This is not a basis to disregard her obligations under the settlement. 

On these facts, this court concludes that the parties signed a binding written Settlement which requires, among other things, that Plaintiff execute the written exclusive easement. That Settlement remains binding and enforceable. 

Based upon all of the evidence submitted, it is clear to this Court that the Plaintiff is attempting, without any adequate legal basis) to unilaterally disavow and renounce the binding agreement which was made during the mediation process (and thereafter).  She appears to have reflected more upon this agreement and believes that she is not getting enough money, since her damages are more significant than she earlier may have believed.  [FN 3]

Simply put:  She has buyer’s remorse.  Too bad.  A deal is a deal and there is no sufficient legal basis for this Court to void it under these facts and circumstances.

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Enforce Settlement is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to execute all documents necessary to effectuate the easement within 14-days of this Ruling. 

B. Attorney’s Fees

The moving party also seeks $7,012.50 in attorney’s fees against Plaintiff incurred to enforce the Settlement Agreement. 

The Settlement provides: “If there is litigation or arbitration regarding this Agreement, the prevailing Party will be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.” (Kassouni Decl., Exh. A, ¶ 3.1)

Defendant’s counsel, Timothy Kassouni, has attested to the time spent in connection with the instant motion. (Kassouni Decl. ¶ 12.) This court finds the fees to be reasonable and therefore recoverable under the attorney’s fee clause. 

Given the circumstances, this court orders that any and all requests for sanctions be credited against the $45,000 owed to Plaintiff under the Settlement. Thus, the $45,000 payment is reduced by $7,012.50, for a total payment of $37,987.50 owed to Plaintiff once the easement is executed. 

C. Appointment of Elisor

Finally, the moving party asks the court to appoint an elisor to execute the easement on Plaintiff’s behalf. 

“[A]n elisor is a person appointed by the court to perform functions like the execution of a deed or document.” (Blueberry Props., LLC v. Chow (2014) 230 Cal. App. 4th 1017, 1020.) “A court typically appoints an elisor to sign documents on behalf of a recalcitrant party in order to effectuate its judgments or orders, where the party refuses to execute such documents.” (Id.) This authority is conferred to courts under Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(4), which permits courts to “compel obedience” to their “judgments, orders, and process, and to the orders of a judge out of court, in an action or proceeding pending therein.” This codifies the “ ‘inherent power of the trial court to exercise reasonable control over litigation before it, as well as the inherent and equitable power to achieve justice and prevent misuse of processes lawfully issued.’ ” (Blueberry Properties, LLC, supra, 230 Cal.App.4th at 1021.) 

As discussed supra, rather than appoint an elisor at this time, the Judgment will order that Plaintiff  must execute the documents necessary to effectuate the easement within 14 days.. If she does not do so, any party may immediately move ex parte to have an elisor appointed. 

In that event, Plaintiff will again be responsible for the moving parties’ reasonable attorney’s fees, taken as a credit against the payment owed to her. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:   April 18, 2025 ___________________________________

Judge of the Superior Court

FN 1 -   Notice of Joinders were also filed by the following parties: Cross-Defendants Michelle Von Harnsberger and Brandon Von Harnsberger; Defendants, Cross-Complainants, and Cross-Defendants Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Company and Nicholas Borrelli; and Cross-Defendants and Cross-Complainants Peter Cuttitta and Jeanne Cuttitta. For a joinder to be effective, the joinder generally must (1) be timely, (2) establish the necessary factual foundation to support the motion, and (3) request affirmative relief on behalf of the joining party. (See, e.g., Barak v. Quisenberry Law Firm (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 654, 661; Decker v. U.D. Registry, Inc. (2003) 105 Cal. App. 4th 1382, 1391 [joinder is insufficient where it "is not in the form of a motion and does not present any evidence or argument"].) Here, because the ground for the joinders is evident and the parties are similarly situated for purposes of this motion, the court considers the joinders effective. 

FN 2 - The court made these positions known to Plaintiff at the February 3, 2025 OSC. This culminated with a written minute order in which this court wrote: “The court once again clarified its earlier ruling that the settlement agreement required her to sign the easement at issue first, before the money was to be tendered within 14 days after recording same. If the defendants failed to timely make the required payments, she could seek the appropriate remedy, including the voiding of the recordation of the easement docs.” (See 02/03/2025 Minute Order, ¶ 4.)

FN 3 - See, e.g., Plaintiff’s Correspondence to Court, filed under seal on 1/31/25.