Judge Serena R. Murillo, Case 19STCV20934 2023-02-10 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 19STCV20934, Date: 2023-02-10 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 29 - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS IMPORTANT (PLEASE SEND YOUR E-MAIL TO DEPT. 29 NOT DEPT. 2)

Communicating with the Court Staff re the Tentative Ruling 1. Please notify the courtroom staff by email not later than 9:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion. The email address is SSCDEPT29@lacourt.org. Please do not use any other email address. 2. You must include the other parties on the email by "cc." 3. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the Subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. THE COURT WILL HEAR ARGUMENT UNLESS BOTH SIDES SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE. 4. Include the words "SUBMISSION BUT WILL APPEAR" if you submit, but one or both parties will nevertheless appear. 5. For other communications with Court Staff a. OFF-CALENDAR should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed to have a matter placed off-calendar. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) date of proceeding. b. CASE SETTLED should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed that the case has settled for all purposes. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) whether notice of settlement/dismissal documents have been filed; (c) if (b) has not been done, a date one year from the date of your email which will be a date set by the court for an OSC for dismissal of the case. c. STIPULATION should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have stipulated that a matter before the court can be postponed. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) what proceeding is agreed to be postponed e.g. Trial, FSC; (c) the agreed-upon future date; (d) whether all parties waive notice if the Court informs all counsel/parties that the agreed-upon date is satisfactory. This communication should be used only for matters that are agreed to be postponed and not for orders shortening time. 6. PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT ALL COMMUNICATIONS WITH COURT STAFF DEAL ONLY WITH SCHEDULING AND ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS AND DO NOT DISCUSS THE MERITS OF ANY CASE. (UPDATED 6/17/2020)

IMPORTANT: In light of the COVID-19 emergency, the Court encourages all parties to appear remotely. The capacity in the courtroom is extremely limited. The Court appreciates the cooperation of counsel and the litigants.

ALSO NOTE: If the moving party does not contact the court to submit on the tentative and does not appear (either remotely or in person), the motion will be taken off calendar. THE TENTATIVE RULING WILL NOT BE THE ORDER OF THE COURT.

Case Number: 19STCV20934 Hearing Date: February 10, 2023 Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

Defendant David Lesley’s motion to enforce settlement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 is DENIED. Defendant’s motion for entry of judgment on the February 14, 2022 sanctions award in the amount of $1,100 against Plaintiff Monique Mudarris and counsel of record Vania Nemanpour, jointly and severally, is GRANTED.

Defendant is to file a proposed judgment before the hearing.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 provides:

“(a) [i]f 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. 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.

(b) For purposes of this section, a writing is signed by a party if it is signed by any of the following:

(1) The party.
(2) An attorney who represents the party.
(3) If the party is an insurer, an agent who is authorized in writing by the insurer to sign on the insurer's behalf.”

Strict compliance with the statutory requirements is necessary before a court can enforce a settlement agreement under this statute. (Sully-Miller Contracting Co. v. Gledson/Cashman Construction, Inc. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 30, 37.) Before an amendment was effective on January 1, 2021, “parties” under section 664.6 meant the litigants themselves, not their attorneys. (See Levy v. Superior Court (1995) 10 Cal.4th 578, 586.) The settlement had to include the signatures of the parties seeking to enforce the agreement and against whom enforcement is sought. (J.B.B. Investment Partners, Ltd. v. Fair (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 974, 985.)

Section 664.6 procedure empowers the judge hearing the motion to determine disputed factual issues that have arisen regarding the settlement agreement. It even permits the court “to entertain challenges to the actual terms of the stipulation”, that is, whether there “actually was” a settlement. (Fiore v. Alvord (1985) 182 Cal.App.3d 561, 566 [holding statute's express authorization for trial courts to determine if a settlement occurred is “implicit authorization” for trial court to determine settlement's terms and conditions].) In ruling on the motion, a may receive oral testimony, or may determine the motion upon declarations alone. (Corkland v. Boscoe (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 989, 994.) For example, where the settlement agreement is ambiguous, the court is required to consider extrinsic evidence of the parties' intent. (Steller v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 175, 183.)

Discussion

Defendant moves for an order enforcing the settlement agreement of the parties and dismissing the complaint in this matter.

On February 14, 2022, this Court ordered Plaintiff and her counsel of record Vania Nemanpour of D. Hess Panah & Associates to pay Defendant $1,100 in monetary sanctions jointly and severally. (2/14/2022 Minute Order.) On August 25, 2022, the parties agreed to resolve this matter for the “sole consideration of Eighteen Thousand Five Hundred Dollars and no/100 - $18,500.00.” (Exhibit 2.) On September 7, 2022, a check for $17,400 was sent to plaintiff Monique Mudarris and D. Hess Panah & Associates. (Exhibit 3.) Defendant by and through his attorney Bretoi, Lutz & Stele waives his claim to $1,100 in monetary sanctions as additional consideration to comply with the terms of the settlement agreement. Plaintiff has refused to dismiss her complaint despite the consummated settlement agreement.

The Court finds that the settlement leaves material terms wanting, e.g., what the parties meant of the term “consideration,” and thus, the settlement cannot be enforced through section 664.6. If the settlement leaves material terms wanting, or confusing, the settlement cannot be enforced through the section 664.6 summary proceeding and must be addressed in a separate civil action. (Compare Terry v. Conlan (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1445 [finding parties never agreed to the means that were material to the settlement, including what role an independent manager was to play regarding management of a trust property, and whether the trust should be qualified as a QTIP, thereby indicating that there was no meeting of the minds as to the material terms] with Osumi v. Sutton (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1355 [holding trial court’s decision to extend closing date for vendor’s agreement to repurchase house did not create a material term and was within court’s power because the closing date had passed by the time the motions came on for hearing and a new closing date was necessary to grant the relief sought by both parties].) There was no meeting of the minds as Defendant believes he could substitute the payment of sanctions for the payment of settlement money.

Moreover, the settlement agreements appears not to be fully executed as Defendant’s signature is not on the settlement agreement. This is another reason to deny this motion.

Thus, the motion to enforce under section 664.6 is denied.

In the alternative, Defendant moves for entry of judgment on the monetary sanction in the Court’s February 14, 2022 order in the amount of $1,100 against Plaintiff Monique Mudarris and counsel of record Vania Nemanpour.

An order imposing monetary sanctions may be enforced under the Enforcement of Judgments Law. (Code Civ. Proc., § 680.010 et seq.) A sanctions order is enforceable in the same way as a money judgment (i.e. a writ of execution may be issued by the court and levied on the property of the person sanctioned). (Weil & Brown, California Practice Guide, Civil Procedure Before Trial §9:1285.) (See Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4^th 608, 615 (“Weil and Brown observe that many attorneys seem to be unaware that monetary sanction orders are enforceable through the execution of judgment laws. [Citation] These orders have the force and effect of a money judgment, and are immediately enforceable through execution, except to the extent the trial court may order a stay of the sanction. [Citations] Unawareness of this remedy may explain why terminating sanctions are often sought when monetary sanctions are unpaid.”).) (See also C.C.P. §§680.230, 680.270, 699.510.) Alternatively, a sanctions order may be enforced by asking the court for a judgment thereon and then recording an abstract of judgment. (Weil & Brown, California Practice Guide, Civil Procedure Before Trial §9:1285.)

Defendant submitted evidence showing it served and filed a Notice of Ruling (of the court’s February 14, 2022 Order) on February 22, 2022. (Tusa Decl., Exh. 2.) Plaintiff does not dispute the non-payment of these sanctions.

Therefore, the motion for the Court to enter judgment on the February 14, 2022 sanctions award in the amount of $1,100 against Plaintiff Monique Mudarris and counsel of record Vania Nemanpour, jointly and severally, is GRANTED. Defendant is to file a proposed judgment.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to enforce settlement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 is DENIED. Defendant’s motion for entry of judgment on the February 14, 2022 sanctions award in the amount of $1,100 against Plaintiff Monique Mudarris and counsel of record Vania Nemanpour, jointly and severally, is GRANTED. Defendant is to file a proposed judgment before the hearing.

Defendant is ordered to give notice.