Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 19STCV20735, Date: 2024-10-14 Tentative Ruling

Tentative rulings are sometimes, but not always, posted. The purpose of posting a tentative ruling is to to help focus the argument. The posting of a tentative ruling is not an invitation for the filing of additional papers shortly before the hearing.

Case Number: 19STCV20735    Hearing Date: October 14, 2024    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTIES:              Plaintiffs Ye Zhang and KYL Construction, Inc.                  

RESPONDING PARTY:        Unopposed

Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement

The court considered the amended moving and reply papers filed in connection with this motion.  No opposition papers were filed.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs Ye Zhang and KYL Construction, Inc. (“Plaintiffs”) filed this action on June 13, 2019, against defendants Xiang Ling, Sumiko Abe, and KYL Construction, LLC (“Defendants”).  Thereafter, on June 10, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Settlement of Entire Case, advising the court that the parties entered into a settlement of this action.  (June 10, 2024 Notice of Settlement, ¶ 1.)

Plaintiffs now move the court for an order enforcing the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement, entering judgment according to its terms, and awarding to Plaintiffs $8,720 in attorney’s fees and $60 in costs.

Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 provides, in relevant part, the following:¿ “If 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.”¿ This statute “provides a summary procedure to enforce a settlement agreement by entering judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.”¿ (Hines v. Lukes (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1182.)¿ “If 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.”¿ (Ibid.)¿¿¿¿¿¿ 

            Plaintiffs have submitted a copy of the “Confidential Settlement Agreement and Release,” entered into by Plaintiffs, on the one hand, and Defendants, on the other hand.[1]  (Azat Decl., Ex. D, Settlement.)  Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the parties agreed to settle this action for the amount of $50,000, to be paid as follows: (1) $30,000 within 21 days of the effective date (i.e., the date on which all Plaintiffs executed the agreement), and (2) $20,000 within 51 days of the effective date.  (Azat Decl., Ex. D, Settlement, ¶ 3, subds. (a)(i), (a)(ii).)  The agreement further provides that, should Defendants fail to make any payment, the full remaining balance shall immediately become due and payable.  (Azat Decl., Ex. D, Settlement, ¶ 3, subd. (a)(iii).)  Plaintiffs and Defendants also agreed that the court would retain jurisdiction pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.  (Azat Decl., Ex. D, Settlement, ¶ 5.)

            Thus, the court finds that Plaintiffs have presented evidence establishing that they and Defendants stipulated, in a writing signed outside of the presence of the court, for the settlement of this case.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6, subd. (a).)  The court further finds that Plaintiffs have presented evidence establishing that Defendants have not performed under the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement by failing to make all required payments within the time required.  (Azat Decl., ¶¶ 4, 5 [defendant Xiang Ling made a single payment of $10,000 on July 3, 2024], 12 [no further payments have been received].)

            Defendants did not file an opposition to this motion disputing their failure to comply with the settlement agreement or establishing that they have since made all required payments.  The court notes that Defendants filed, on August 9, 2024, their “Motion to Extent the Payment Period Stipulated in the Settle Agreement Which Signed on June 21, 2024 and New Payment Plan,” in which Defendants appear to request that the court permit Defendants to make monthly payments in the amount of $1,500 to plaintiff Ye Zhang.  (Def. Mot., p. 1:21-22.)  But (1) that motion is set for hearing on December 17, 2024, and Defendants did not move the court, by ex parte application or other appropriate motion, to advance the hearing on their motion to be heard before or at the same time as Plaintiffs’ motion, and (2) Defendants did not file an opposition to this motion requesting such relief. 

            The court therefore finds that Plaintiffs are entitled to an order entering judgment in their favor and against Defendants pursuant to the terms of the parties’ Confidential Settlement Agreement and Release.  (Code Civ. Proc., §¿664.6, subd. (a).)  The court further finds that Plaintiffs have shown that they incurred reasonable attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of  $2,660 ((6.5 hours x $400 hourly rate) + $60 in filing fees) to enforce the settlement agreement.  (Azat Decl., Ex. D, Settlement, ¶ 15 [“If any act is necessary to enforce or interpret the terms of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs . . . .”]; Azat Decl., ¶¶ 11, 13.)

ORDER

            The court grants plaintiffs Ye Zhang and KYL Construction, Inc.’s motion to enforce settlement agreement as follows.

            The court shall enter judgment in favor of plaintiffs Ye Zhang and KYL Construction, Inc. and against defendants Xiang Ling, Sumiko Abe, and KYL Construction, LLC in the total amount of $42,660, consisting of (1) $40,000 damages for the unpaid balance owed on the parties’ Confidential Settlement Agreement and Release ($50,000 less the $10,000 paid), (2) $2,600 in reasonable attorney’s fees, and (3) $60 in costs.

            The court orders plaintiffs Ye Zhang and KYL Construction, Inc. to prepare, serve, and lodge a proposed Judgment (made on Judicial Council form JUD-100) consistent with this order within 10 days of the date of this ruling.

            The court sets an Order to Show Cause re judgment for hearing on November 27, 2024, at 8:30 a.m., in Department 53.

            The court orders plaintiffs Ye Zhang and KYL Construction, Inc. to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  October 14, 2024

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court