Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: BC667432, Date: 2023-11-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC667432    Hearing Date: November 16, 2023    Dept: 39

Eduvina Martinez, et al. v. Lotfallah Shokrian, et al.

Case No. BC667432

Motion to Enforce Settlement

            Plaintiffs filed this habitability action on July 3, 2017, following which the parties settled the case.  Plaintiffs establish that Defendants owe them an outstanding balance of $55,000 under the settlement agreement as well as $11,000 in interest.  The settlement agreement has a provision under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, so the Court has jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement. 

            Defendants do not dispute that they owe $66,000 under the settlement agreement.  Instead, they make a series of procedural arguments.  First, Defendants argue that the Court lacks jurisdiction because the parties did not file a stipulation and proposed order for the Court to retain jurisdiction.  While that is “best practices,” it is not required under section 664.6 because that section permits the parties to preserve their rights through “a writing signed by the parties outside the presence of the court . . . .”  In this case, the settlement agreement states: “The parties do hereby agree that each has the right to enforce this Agreement, or any provision thereof, by filing any appropriate motion or proceeding, including without limitation, a motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§ 664.6 & 664.7, in the appropriate law and motions department of the Los Angeles Superior Court where the Action has its venue.  The Parties further agree, acknowledge and stipulate that the Court in the Action shall retain jurisdiction over the Parties to determine any motion brough pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§ 664.6 & 664.7.”  This is sufficient.

            Defendants argue that it is unclear against which of them this motion relates.  The motion was noticed against Defendant Lotfallah Shokrian, Helen Shokrian, and Last Management, LLC.  Those defendants are signatories to the settlement agreement.  Therefore, the agreement provides for joint and several liability, and Defendants’ argument lacks merit.  Finally, Defendants argue that they cannot afford to pay the remaining settlement amount.  That is not a defense to this motion.   

            Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ motion is granted.  Plaintiffs’ counsel seeks an award of attorneys’ fees and costs for enforcement of the settlement agreement and any judgment.  Plaintiffs did not provide sufficient notice in the instant motion, so the request is denied at this time.  If there is a contractual or statutory basis to do so, Plaintiffs’ counsel may file a separate noticed motion for attorneys’ fees and costs that cites the legal authority for the motion, provides notice of the amount requested, and includes proper support for the request. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            Based upon the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

            1.         Plaintiffs’ motion to enforce the settlement is granted.

            2.         Plaintiffs’ counsel may lodge a proposed judgment if necessary. 

            3.         The Court denies Plaintiffs’ counsel’s request for attorney’s fees and costs without prejudice to filing a noticed motion if there is a contractual or statutory basis to do so.

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