Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: KC061902, Date: 2023-01-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: KC061902    Hearing Date: January 12, 2023    Dept: G

Plaintiff Admiral Mortgage Corporation’s Motion to Enforcement Settlement Judgment

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Admiral Mortgage Corporation’s Motion to Enforcement Settlement Judgment is DENIED, without prejudice.

BACKGROUND

On August 15, 2011, Plaintiff Admiral Mortgage Corp. brought a breach of contract action against Harich Sung Kim and Hyun S. Kim (collectively, Defendants). Subsequently on April 12, 2013, the parties engaged in mandatory settlement negotiations and settled their claims. Defendants agreed to pay $25,000 but only made payments of $2,250.

On November 18, 2022, Plaintiff filed the present motion. A hearing on the motion is set for January 12, 2023.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff seeks an entry of judgment enforcing the terms of a settlement agreement between Plaintiff and Defendants. For the following reasons, the court DENIES, without prejudice, this request.

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).) 

In this case, Plaintiff’s motion and the declaration of Simon Kim both reference a copy of the settlement stipulation between the parties as “Exhibit 1.” (Motion, p. 3:2-7; Kim Decl., ¶ 4.) However, the court is not in receipt of any “Exhibit 1” provided by Plaintiff. Thus, Plaintiff has not carried the burden of establishing the existence of a settlement agreement or stipulation.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED, without prejudice.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the court DENIES, without prejudice, Plaintiff’s motion to enforce settlement agreement.