Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 20CHCV00185, Date: 2022-08-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20CHCV00185    Hearing Date: August 18, 2022    Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Date: 8-18-22

Case # 20CHCV00185

Trial Date: N/A

ENFORCE SETTLEMENT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs, Claudio Aguirre

RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed/ Defendants, Jose Osorio, et al.

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On June 18, 2004, Plaintiff Claudio Aguirre and Defendants Jose and Maria Osorio entered into a “written ‘Bill of Sale’” agreement for Defendant’s purchase of “R&S Transmission Shop” as well as “Real Property.” The total purchase price was $750,000. The agreement also included an agreement, whereby Plaintiff agreed to allow for 360 monthly payments (30 years) at a rate of 10% (August 1, 2004 to July 1, 2034). [Comp., Ex. 1.] On June 28, 2005, Plaintiff executed a grant deed to the property. [Comp., Ex. 2.][1]

In September 2018, Plaintiff alleges Defendants failed to make their monthly payment due, or any payments thereafter. Plaintiff declared a default, with an amount due of $1,257,121.89.

On March11, 2020, Plaintiff filed a verified complaint on for Specific Performance, Breach of Contract, and Quiet Title. Plaintiff filed a Notice of Pendency of Action on June 17, 2020. On June 18, 2020, plaintiff filed a copy of the lis pendens, showing a recording date of April 28, 2020.

On August 4, 2020, the clerk entered defaults against Defendants. On September 14, 2020, the court entered the stipulation setting aside the defaults. Defendants answered on October 22, 2020.

RULING: Granted.

Plaintiff Claudio Aguirre moves for entry of judgment against Defendants Jose and Maria Osorio following the breach of the settlement agreement. On March 7, 2022, the first day of trial, the parties announced their settlement of the case, and requested dismissal with retention of jurisdiction to enforce the terms. The terms are presented as follows: Entry of judgment for $950,000 total, with “principal amount payable in same manner as note.” More specifically, payment of $100,000 due no later than July 15, 2022, with the remaining $850,000 balance amortized at 10% over 15 years—monthly payments of $9,134.14. Breach of any payment renders the principal immediately due and payable. Plaintiff alleges Defendants refuse to enter into the judgment, thereby prompting the motion.

At the time of the tentative ruling publication cutoff, the court electronic filing system shows no filed opposition or reply.

“If 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.”

(Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6.)

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.) Accordingly, “parties” under section 664.6 means the litigants themselves, not their attorneys.  (Levy v. Superior Court (1995) 10 Cal.4th 578, 586 (holding “we conclude that the term ‘parties’ as used in section 664.6 means the litigants themselves, and does not include their attorneys of record.”).) Additionally, the settlement must 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.)

The terms were dictated to the court and presented in the March 7, 2022 filed Stipulation re: Settlement. [Declaration of Shivali Kasbekar, Ex. 1.] The court finds the terms of the settlement properly presented to the court, and that Defendants are in breach of the settlement, due to the failure to execute the judgment pursuant to the terms. [Kasbekar Decl.] The court therefore grants the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6.)

Plaintiff may submit a proposed judgment to the court reflecting the terms. The judgment must also reflect terms for credit for any payments, and a submitted acknowledgment (partial) of satisfaction of judgment, if applicable.

The court also notes the agreement for the recovery of attorney fees in connection with enforcement. [Kasbekar Decl., Ex. 1.] The court awards $960 reflecting three hours of work for the drafting and appearance on this unopposed item, as well as the $60 motion filing fee.

Plaintiff to give notice.