Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: KC068926, Date: 2023-03-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: KC068926    Hearing Date: March 23, 2023    Dept: G

Plaintiff Chunping Cong’s Motion to Enter Judgment for Defendant’s Refusal to Comply with Court’s Order to Enforce Settlement  

Respondent: Defendant Jason Tsao

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Chunping Cong’s Motion to Enter Judgment for Defendant’s Refusal to Comply with Court’s Order to Enforce Settlement is GRANTED. Judgment is entered against Defendant Jason Tsao in the amount of $273,000 plus interest accruing from November 1, 2022, plus costs.

BACKGROUND

This is an action arising from a family business dispute. In 1998, Chunping Cong (Cong) and Mingxiu Cao (Cao), Cong’s husband, came to the United States from China on a temporary visa and founded C & L Marble Products, Inc (C&L). In September 2000, Cong and Cao returned to China and left Jason Tsao (Tsao), Cao’s cousin’ in charge of the business. In June 2016, Cong allegedly discovered Tsao was transferring C&L’s assets to Tsao. Cong also claims Tsao changed C&L’s name to “Kingstone Marble, Inc.” and subsequently dissolved the company without Cong’s permission. During this same period, Tsao claimed to loan $1,080,000 to Cao, Cong, and C&L. In May 2016, prior to Cong’s alleged discovery, Tsao allegedly demanded repayment of the loan.

On December 14, 2016, Cong filed a complaint, individually and as a shareholder of C&L, against Tsao and Does 1-20, alleging the following causes of action: (1) fraud, (2) breach of fiduciary duty, (3) conversion, (4) declaratory relief, (5) accounting, (6) unjust enrichment, and (7) constructive trust. On February 20, 2018, Tsao filed a First Amended Cross-Complaint against Cong, Cao, Liren Cao, Bria Lifu Cao, C&L, and Roes 1-10, alleging the following causes of action: (1) money lent, (2) fraudulent transfer (actual fraud), (3) fraudulent transfer (constructive fraud), (4) fraud (promissory fraud), (5) unjust enrichment, (6) accounting, (7) constructive trust, and (8) declaratory relief.

On December 2, 2020, Tsao filed a motion for summary judgment on Cong’s claims. On February 17, 2021, the court denied Tsao’s motion. On April 16, Tsao filed a notice of appeal and on August 17, the Court of Appeal dismissed Tsao’s appeal.

On August 8, 2022, Tsao filed a motion to rescind the settlement and Cong filed a motion to enforce the settlement. On January 4, 2023, the court denied Tsao’s motion and granted Cong’s motion.

On February 6, 2023, Cong filed the present motion. A hearing is set for March 23.

ANALYSIS

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).)

In this case, the court granted Cong’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement on January 4, 2023. According to the terms of the settlement agreement, Tsao agreed to pay $273,000 to Cong on or before November 1, 2022. (Tiedt Decl., Ex. 1, p. 40:19-25.) On January 5, 2023, Cong’s counsel sent Tsao’s counsel a letter requesting payment of $273,000 by January 28. (Tiedt Decl., ¶ 15.) After Cong did not receive any payment on January 28, Cong’s counsel was informed by Tsao’s counsel on January 30 that Tsao “did not want to pay the settlement.” (Tiedt Decl., ¶ 18.)

Because the court has already found a valid settlement agreement exists, Tsao does not have any legal ground to refuse to make the agreed upon payments. Accordingly, Cong’s request for an entry of judgment against Tsao is GRANTED.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the court GRANTS Cong’s motion and enters judgment against Tsao in the amount of $273,000 plus interest accruing from November 1, 2022, plus costs.