Judge Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case 21STCV41189 2022-08-26 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 21STCV41189, Date: 2022-08-26 Tentative Ruling

These cases stem from the sale of Carolyn McGill’s house to Vladimir Ibanez. McGill sold the house, but refused to move out, following which Ibanez filed an unlawful detainer action. Then, McGill filed a civil action for breach of contract, fraud, elder abuse, and other causes of action. Based upon the stipulation of the parties, the Court conducted an informal settlement conference concerning the issue of possession, which is at issue in the unlawful detainer case. The parties reached a settlement on the issue of possession, which would resolve the unlawful detainer case. McGill, Ibanez, and their attorneys agreed to the settlement in open court. Now, there is a motion to enforce the settlement, which is not opposed. The motion is granted.

In or about August 2020, R. Marina Raines offered to purchase McGill’s residence on behalf of Ibanez, to which she agreed. (Complaint, ¶ 15.) Plaintiff attached the agreement as Exhibit A to her complaint. (Id., Exh. A.) Per the terms of the agreement, the Ibanez Defendants would take title to the residence in exchange for $779,127.31. (Id., Exh. A, ¶ V.) The agreement—a copy of which was attached to the complaint—states that the “Purchase Price and Terms” would be “$779,127.31 all cash to Seller. The buyer agrees to assume the existing Loans made to seller, which have been made to secure the above described property free and clear of any Mortgage obligations to the seller.” (Ibid.) The agreement required the Ibanez Defendants to pay the full purchase price by closing, and stipulated that Plaintiff and her husband could remain in the residence until all financial and legal requirements had been satisfied. (Id., ¶ 19 & Exh. A, ¶ VIII.) To date, Plaintiff alleges that she has received only $459,000 of the purchase price, and that she is owed another $320,127.31. (Id., ¶ 20.) Ibanez disputes that account and alleges that Exhibit A is not the final agreement, as there were subsequent modifications. Ibanez alleges that he has paid the full purchase price and is entitled to the house.

Ibanez filed an unlawful detainer case—Case Number 21PDUD00840—on September 13, 2021, seeking possession of the property, as well as unpaid holdover rent. McGill filed a civil case—Case Number 21STCV41189—asserting causes of action for breach of contract, fraud, elder abuse, and other causes of action. Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, on July 28, 2022, the undersigned conducted an informal settlement conference on the issue of possession. (See Minute Order, Case No. 21PDUD00840, July 28, 2022.) The parties reached a settlement concerning the issue of possession as follows: (1) Ms. McGill will surrender possession of the property within six weeks, on or before September 9, 2022; (2) Mr. Ibanez shall have the right to inspect the property within two weeks, on or before August 12, 2022; (3) The parties will enter into a stipulation for a judgment of possession, but the judgment will not be issued unless there is a violation of the settlement agreement; (4) To the extent Mr. Ibanez is seeking damages from Ms. McGill, he will file a cross-complaint in Case Number 21STCV41189, and he will dismiss Case Number 21PDUD00840. (Ibid.)[1] Following the settlement conference, each party (McGill and Ibanez) and each attorney (Boling and White) stipulated in open court to the terms of the settlement in the presence of the undersigned. (See Minute Order, Case No. 21PDUD00840, August 12, 2022.) The Court ordered the parties to memorialize the settlement, which included the standard waivers and other non-dispositive terms. (Ibid.) The Court set a status conference for August 12, 2022, at 8:30 a.m.

At the hearing, Ibanez’s counsel reported that McGill had not made the property available for inspection, per the parties’ settlement agreement. Ibanez now seeks to enforce the dispositive terms of the settlement—possession—per Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. Although McGill had personally appeared at every hearing, she did not appear on August 12, 2022. Neither McGill nor her attorney has filed an opposition to the motion. McGill’s counsel also seeks to be relieved.

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.)

The parties reached a settlement on the issue of possession based upon specific terms that were read in open court. Each party (McGill and Ibanez) and each attorney (Boling and White) stipulated to the terms of the settlement. An evidentiary hearing is not necessary. The record is clear. Moreover, the undersigned personally handled the settlement conference, read the terms of the stipulation in open court, and took each stipulation. McGill has filed no opposition to this motion. McGill did not appear at status conference on August 12, 2022, or the hearing on this motion, to articulate good cause or to request an extension of the move-out date. By ignoring these proceedings and not complying with the inspection provision, McGill has given the Court no choice but to grant this motion. Therefore, the Court issues a judgment of possession for Ibanez immediately. However, per the terms of the settlement agreement, the Court stays the lock-out until September 9, 2022. The Court orders that McGill shall vacate the property and surrender possession to Ibanez, per the terms of the settlement, on or before September 9, 2022.

The Court grants McGill’s counsel’s motion to be relieved. The Court finds good cause based upon Counsel’s declaration of August 11, 2022, as well as his representation in open court at the hearing on August 12, 2022, that his client has stopped communicating with him. Therefore, the motion is granted, and he shall be relieved from representing McGill in both cases upon serving this minute order, as well as the Court’s order on Form MC-053 and the judgment in Case Number 21PDUD00840, and files a proof of service.

1. The Court grants Ibanez’s motion to enforce the settlement in Case Number 21PDUD00840. The Court issues a judgment of possession for Ibanez immediately. However, per the terms of the settlement agreement, the Court stays the lock-out until September 9, 2022. The Court orders that McGill shall vacate the property and surrender possession to Ibanez, per the terms of the settlement, on or before September 9, 2022.

2. The Court grants McGill’s counsel’s motions to be relieved in both cases. This order shall become effective only after McGill’s counsel serves this minute order, the Court’s order on Form MC-053, and the Court’s judgment of possession in Case Number 21PDUD00840.

3. The Court sets an Order to Show Cause why Case Number 21PDUD00840 should not be dismissed, per the terms of the settlement. The OSC hearing shall be held on October 4, 2022, at 8:30 a.m. at the following location:

The parties may appear remotely or in-person. The Court provides notice that absent good cause, the Court intends to dismiss Case Number 21PDUD00840 with prejudice.

4. The Court authorizes Ibanez to file a cross-complaint in Case Number 21STCV41189, per the terms of the settlement. The Court shall hold a case management conference in Case Number 21STCV41189 on October 4, 2022, at 8:30 a.m. The Court orders McGill, or a new attorney representing McGill, to appear at the case management conference. The Court also orders counsel for Ibanez to appear at the case management conference. The parties may appear remotely or in-person. The Court provides notice that if McGill or an attorney representing her does not appear, absent good cause, the Court intends to dismiss the complaint in Case Number 21STCV41189 without prejudice. The Court provides notice that if Ibanez’s counsel does not appear, absent good cause, the Court intends to dismiss any cross-complaint in Case Number 21STCV41189 without prejudice.

5. The Court’s clerk shall serve this order upon counsel for McGill and Ibanez. The Court orders counsel for McGill to serve this order, as well as the signed order on Form MC-053 and the judgment in the unlawful detainer case, upon his clients and file a proof of service.

[1] The initial minute order contained a clerical error. Initially, the settlement was characterized as “tentative.” (See Minute Order, Case No. 21PDUD00840, July 28, 2022.) This was a clerical error that the Court discovered and corrected. (See Minute Order, Case No. 21PDUD00840, August 12, 2022.)