Judge Randy Rhodes, Case 19CHCV00270 2023-01-23 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Randy Rhodes, Case: 19CHCV00270, Date: 2023-01-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19CHCV00270 Hearing Date: January 23, 2023 Dept: F51

Dept. F-51

Date: 1/23/23

Case #19CHCV00270

MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT

Motion Filed: 12/5/22

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Matthew R. Shannon, an individual (“Plaintiff”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants David Rivero, an individual; Gary McNelley, an individual; Superior Health and Beauty, LLC., a California limited liability company; Market Health, Inc., a California corporation; Affiliate Payments, Inc., a California corporation; Snap Call Center, LLC. a California limited liability company; Rapid Phone Center, LLC., a California limited liability company; Global Naturals Manufacturing, Inc., a California corporation; GSCM Ventures, Inc., a California corporation; Pacific Naturals, Inc., a California corporation; Nextgen Marketplace, Inc., a California corporation; Rapid Fulfillment, LLC., a California limited liability company; Online Shipping Insurance Services, Inc., a California corporation; and EKM Family Trust (collectively, “Defendants”)

NOTICE: OK

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order and entry of judgment enforcing the terms of a settlement agreement between Plaintiff and Defendants, pursuant to a settlement agreement between the parties dated 5/17/22. Plaintiff also requests an award of attorney fees and costs against Defendant in the amount of at least $971.65.

TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff is entitled to: (1) the outstanding unpaid balance of past due rent; (2) a forfeiture of Defendant’s rights under the lease/rental agreement; and (3) possession of the subject premises.

Plaintiff is reminded to review the 5/3/19 First Amended General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil. When e-filing documents, parties must comply with the “TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS” which are set forth at page 4, line 4 through page 5, line 12 of the Court’s 5/3/19 First Amended General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil (particularly bookmarking declarations and exhibits). (CRC 3.1110(f)(4).) Failure to comply with these requirements in the future may result in papers being rejected, matters being placed off calendar, matters being continued so documents can be resubmitted in compliance with these requirements, documents not being considered and/or the imposition of sanctions.

Background

This is a wrongful termination action. On 3/27/19, Plaintiff filed his complaint against defendants, alleging the following causes of action: (1) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy; (2) Age Discrimination in Violation of Fair Employment and Housing Act; (3) Disability Discrimination in Violation of Fair Employment and Housing Act; (4) Discrimination in Violation of Public Policy; (5) Failure to Engage in Interactive Process in Violation of Fair Employment and Housing Act; (6) Retaliation for Requesting Accommodations Due to Disability; (7) Failure to Prevent Discrimination; (8) Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (9) Violation of CFRA Rights; (10) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (11) Civil Extortion; (12) Fraud; (13) Unjust Enrichment; (14) Cancellation of Instrument; and (15) Rescission.

On 5/17/22, the parties entered into a settlement agreement wherein, inter alia, Defendants were to pay to Plaintiff $175,000.00 in exchange for Plaintiff’s release of all claims. (Ex. B to Pl.’s Mot., ¶ 2.A.) Under the explicit terms of the agreement, Defendants agreed to pay Plaintiff an initial sum of $150,000.00, followed by a second payment in the amount of $25,000.00, both within 30 days of receipt of certain documents. (Id. at ¶¶ 2.A.1–4.)

The agreement also provides that “the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees and all reasonable litigation related costs and expenses incurred.” (Id. at ¶ 23.)

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to make their second payment under the agreement. (Pl.’s Mot. 5:27–28.) On 12/5/22, Plaintiff filed the instant motion enforce the settlement agreement. No opposition has been filed to date.

Analysis

“If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside of 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.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 664.6, subd. (a).)

In determining a motion to enforce a settlement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, the court seeks to determine whether the parties entered into a valid and binding settlement of all or part of the case. (In re Marriage of Assemi (1994) 7 Cal.4th 896, 905.) While the court may interpret the parties’ settlement agreement’s terms, nothing in section 664.6 authorizing a judgment enforcing a settlement agreement authorizes a judge to create the material terms of a settlement, as opposed to deciding what terms the parties themselves have previously agreed upon. (Leeman v. Adams Extract & Spice, LLC (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 1367.)

A party moving for entry of judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 need not establish a breach of the settlement agreement; the court is authorized to enter judgment pursuant to the settlement regardless of whether the settlement's obligations were performed, breached or excused. (Hines v. Lukes (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1184–1185.)

Here, Plaintiff has attached to the instant motion a copy of the 5/17/22 settlement agreement allegedly entered into between the parties. (Ex. B. to Pl.’s Mot.) As the motion is unopposed, the Court finds no dispute as to the validity and enforceability of the agreement. Moreover, the agreement explicitly provides that the Court may enforce its terms pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. (Id. at ¶ 28.)

Based on the foregoing, the Court grants Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to enforce the terms of the 5/17/22 settlement agreement entered into between the parties.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff is entitled to (1) the outstanding unpaid balance of settlement monies; and (2) attorney fees and costs related to the instant motion.