Judge Randy Rhodes, Case 22CHCV00537 2023-04-03 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Randy Rhodes, Case: 22CHCV00537, Date: 2023-04-03 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F51, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2251. Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 22CHCV00537 Hearing Date: April 3, 2023 Dept: F51

Dept. F-51

Date: 4/3/23

Case #22CHCV00537

MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT

Motion Filed: 1/31/23

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Plaintiff”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Chitra Chatlani, an individual (“Defendant”)

NOTICE: OK

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order and entry of judgment enforcing the terms of the 10/15/22 stipulation entered into between the parties.

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

Background

This is a collections action. On 7/19/22, Plaintiff filed its complaint against Defendant, alleging the following causes of action: (1) Breach of Contract and (2) Common Counts.

On 10/15/22, the parties entered into a settlement agreement wherein, inter alia, Defendant was to pay to Plaintiff a total sum of $27,142.72 in exchange for Plaintiff’s release of all claims. (Ex. 1 to Decl. of Ashley Mulhorn, ¶ 3.) Under the explicit terms of the agreement, Defendant agreed to pay Plaintiff $969.00 in monthly installments, from 11/1/22 through 1/1/25, followed by a final payment in the amount of $979.72 on or before 2/1/25. (Id. at ¶¶ 2(A)–(B).) In the event of default, Plaintiff is also entitled to “costs paid and incurred, pursuant to written Declaration by Plaintiff.) (Id. at ¶ 8.)

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to make any payments as required under the agreement. (Pl.’s Mot. 3:12–13.) On 1/31/23, 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 10/15/22 stipulation allegedly entered into between the parties. (Ex. 1 to Mulhorn Decl..) 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 ¶ 5.)

Based on the foregoing, the Court grants Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to enforce the terms of the 10/15/22 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) costs related to the instant motion.