Judge Salvatore Sirna, Case Number: 22PSCV01728, Date: 2024-10-30 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 22PSCV01728, Date: 2024-10-30 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: 22PSCV01728 Hearing Date: October 30, 2024 Dept: G

Plaintiff Tanera Transport LLC’s Motion for Entry of Judgment Pursuant to Terms of Stipulation

Respondent: Defendant Atama Premier Foods LLC

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Tanera Transport LLC’s Motion for Entry of Judgment Pursuant to Terms of Stipulation is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

This is a breach of contract action arising from shipment agreements. Between February and August 2022, Plaintiff Tanera Transport LLC (Tanera) entered into written agreements with Defendant Atama Premier Foods LLC (Atama) in which Tanera agreed to ship goods from Asian ports to Atama’s warehouses in exchange for payment. Tanera alleges Atama breached the agreement by failing to pay the full price for services in the amount of $128,987.04.

On November 8, 2022, Tanera filed a complaint against Atama, Erwan Sutanto, and Does 1-10, alleging the following causes of action: (1) breach of written contract, (2) account stated, (3) services rendered, (4) fraud, and (5) civil theft. On March 2, 2023, the court sustained Atama and Sutanto’s demurrer to Tanera’s Complaint with leave to amend.

On March 21, 2023, Tanera filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) against the same defendants alleging the following causes of action: (1) breach of written contract, (2) account stated, (3) services rendered, and (4) fraud.

On April 16, 2024, Tanera dismissed Sutanto from the present action. On April 23, 2024, the court dismissed the present action in its entirety pursuant to Tanera’s request.

On October 3, 2024, Tanera filed the present motion. A hearing on the present motion is set for October 30, 2024.

ANALYSIS

Tanera seeks an entry of a stipulated judgment enforcing the terms of a settlement agreement between Tanera and Atama. For the following reasons, the court GRANTS Tanera’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, Tanera and Atama executed a stipulation for entry of judgment on February 22, 2024, in which Atama agreed to pay $80,000 to Tanera in monthly increments of $4,000 on the eleventh day of each month. (Kernkamp Decl., Ex. 1-A, ¶ 3.) If Atama defaults on any of the payments when they come due, Tanera is required to give notice of the default by email to Atama’s counsel, William Niu, Esq. (Kernkamp Decl., Ex. 1-A, ¶ 5.) Upon receipt of the notice, Atama has five (5) business days to cure the default and, if Atama fails to do so, Tanera may proceed with seeking entry of the stipulated judgment against Atama. (Kernkamp Decl., Ex. 1-A, ¶ 5.)

Here, Atama failed to make the $4,000 payment for September 11, 2024. (Tan Decl., ¶ 7.) On September 20, 2024, Tanera’s counsel emailed a notice of breach to Atama’s counsel. (Kernkamp Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. 2.) As a result, pursuant to the parties’ agreement, Atama was required to make payment by September 27, 2024, to avoid the entry of judgment. Because Atama failed to do so, Tanera brought the present motion seeking the entry of judgment in the amount of $92,000, including the stipulated judgment of $118,000 minus $28,000 in credited payments and plus $2,000 in reasonable attorney fees. (Kernkamp Decl., ¶ 6.)

In opposition, Atama does not deny failing to timely make the $4,000 payment or receiving notice from Tanera’s counsel. (Sutanto Decl., ¶ 4.) Instead, they ask for relief from judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b) on the grounds that their default was a result of their counsel’s mistake or advertence. Atama does not, however, provide any authority that applies this provision to the entry of stipulated judgments. The court finds such relief would be improper as it would require the court to rewrite the parties’ settlement agreement to include an exception that does not currently exist.

By agreeing to have the notice to cure default sent to their counsel instead of them, Atama accepted the risk that their counsel may miss the notice due to other client obligations or trials, failing to notify Atama in time to cure. Because Atama defaulted pursuant to the terms upon which the parties agreed, Tanera is entitled to seek the entry of stipulated judgment against them.

Accordingly, the court GRANTS Tanera’s motion and finds their requested attorney fees to be reasonable.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Tanera’s motion for the entry of stipulated judgment is GRANTED.

Plaintiff is ordered to prepare a judgment consistent with the court's ruling.