Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 19STCV22971, Date: 2023-08-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV22971    Hearing Date: August 3, 2023    Dept: 39

Security National Insurance Company v. Tamjidi Enterprises, Inc., et al.

Case No. 19STCV22971

Motion to Enforce Settlement

            NOTICE:  The Court posts this tentative order on July 28, 2023, at 9:30 a.m.  The Court will be dark on August 3, 2023, and the Court does not intend to hold a hearing on this motion absent a request.  Any party requesting a hearing should email the Court’s clerk, Roberto Mendoza, at SMCDept39@LACourt.org, on or before August 3, 2023, at 8:30 a.m.  In the alternative, any party requesting a hearing may do so by appearing remotely on the morning of the hearing.  If any party requests a hearing, the Court's clerk will reschedule the hearing for a date when the Court is available.  If neither party requests a hearing, the Court’s clerk will issue this order on August 3, 2023, at 8:30 a.m. without any hearing.    

[TENTATIVE] ORDER

            Plaintiff Security National Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) moves to enforce a settlement agreement with Defendants Tamjidi Enterprises Inc., Airport Auto Spa LLC, Century City Auto Space Inc., Century City Valet LLC, Culver City Auto Spa and Valet LLC, Downtown Tower Auto Spa LLC, Hope Tower Auto Spa LLC, Library Auto Spa LLC, the Jidi Group Inc., the Village Auto Spa and Valey LLC, Topanga Auto Spa and Valet LLC,  Shahram Tamjidi, and Sherman Oaks Auto Spa and Valet LLC (“Defendants”).  Defendants did not file an opposition to this motion. 

Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 provides that “[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.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6.)  In ruling on a motion to enter judgment, the Court acts as a trier of fact.  The Court must determine whether the parties entered into a valid and binding settlement.  To do so, the Court may receive oral testimony in addition to declarations.  (Kohn v. Jaymar-Ruby, Inc. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1530, 1533.) 

Plaintiff relies on a settlement agreement between the parties.  Defendants agreed to pay Plaintiff a total of $175,000 in 35 monthly payments of $5,000 per month from December 1, 2021 until fully paid.  (Declaration of Timothy Carl Aires, Exhibit A.)  To date, Defendants made five payments of $5,000, two payments of $2,5000, and two payments of $2,000.  (Id., ¶ 4.)  Therefore, Defendants have breached the terms of the settlement agreement, which entitles Plaintiff to a judgment.

Based upon the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

1.         Plaintiff’s motion to enforce the settlement is granted.

2.         The Court shall issue a judgment in favor of Plaintiff in the amount of $193,739.15.

3.         Plaintiff’s counsel shall prepare and lodge a proposed judgment.

4.         Plaintiff’s counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.