Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 20PSCV00326, Date: 2024-04-10 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, counsel are advised to check this website periodically to determine whether any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling. Counsel may submit on a tentative ruling by calling the clerk in Department G at (909) 802-1104 prior to 8:30 a.m. the morning of the hearing.

Case Number: 20PSCV00326    Hearing Date: April 10, 2024    Dept: G

Plaintiff Jose R. Pilpa’s Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Jose R. Pilpa’s Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

BACKGROUND

In this contractual fraud action, Plaintiff Jose R. Pilpa allegedly invested $20,000 in a “non-profit venture” run by Pilpa’s neighbor, Defendant Ibrahim Ghanem. Pilpa also signed a durable power of attorney that designed Ghanem as attorney-in-fact for the management of Pilpa’s property and personal affairs. Soon after, Pilpa revoked the power of attorney and requested the $20,000 investment back which Ghanem allegedly refused.

On May 18, 2020, Pilpa filed a complaint against Ghanem, American Power Enterprises, LLC (American Power), and Does 1-10, alleging the following causes of action: (1) promissory fraud, (2) negligent misrepresentation, (3) conversion and embezzlement, (4) elder abuse, (5) declaratory relief, and (6) unfair business practices.

On July 15, 2020, Ghanem and American Power filed a cross-complaint against the Pilpa and Roes 1 through 10, alleging the following causes of action: (1) breach of contract and (2) quantum meruit damages.

On November 2, 2023, Pilpa and Ghanem entered into a stipulated settlement agreement. On March 4, 2024, Pilpa filed the present motion.

A hearing on the present motion is set for April 10, 2024, along with an OSC Re: Dismissal.

ANALYSIS

Pilpa seeks an entry of judgment enforcing the terms of a settlement agreement between Pilpa and Ghanem. For the following reasons, the court DENIES Pilpa’s motion.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 provides a summary procedure that enables courts to enforce a settlement agreement by entering a judgment pursuant to the terms of the parties’ settlement. In relevant part, it provides as follows:

“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).)

A writing is considered signed if signed by the party or an attorney who represents the party. (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6, subd. (b).)

Discussion

In this case, Pilpa and Ghanem entered into a stipulated judgment before the court on November 2, 2023, in which Ghanem agreed to pay $20,000 to Pilpa before January 31, 2024. (11/2/2023 Minute Order, p. 1.) Pilpa argues Pilpa is entitled to an entry of judgment on the grounds that Ghanem has failed to make a timely payment. (Motion, p. 7:19-20.)

Pilpa, however, failed to cite any evidence in support of this claim. Furthermore, Pilpa’s own declaration fails to state clearly that Ghanem did not timely make the required payment. While Pilpa does claim Ghanem “still attempts” to escape Ghanem’s obligations and that it is “ripe time for the court to impose a judgment,” Pilpa failed to clearly and unequivocally state whether Pilpa received the required funds by January 31, 2024. (Pilpa Decl., ¶ 11.) Absent such a clear statement under oath, the court finds that Pilpa falied to establish grounds for the entry of judgment.

Accordingly, Pilpa’s motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Pilpa’s motion to enforce settlement is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.