Judge Stephen P. Pfahler, Case Number: 21STCV41477, Date: 2024-07-31 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 21STCV41477, Date: 2024-07-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV41477 Hearing Date: July 31, 2024 Dept: 68

Dept. 68

Date: 7-31-24

Case # 21STCV41477

Trial Date: N/A

ENFORCE SETTLEMENT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, CIT Bank, N.A.

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, Van Helflin Holdings, Inc., et al.

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Plaintiff CIT Bank, N.A. alleges the existence of a January 10, 2019, executed “MASTER EFA AGREEMENT and EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE,” with Defendant Van Helflin Holdings, Inc., whereby Van Helflin Holdings, Inc., agreed to 60 monthly payments of $754.56. Defendant Stephen Heflin executed a personal guaranty. Plaintiff alleges a default/breach on the lease thereby leaving a $32,038.44 balance due.

On November 10, 2021, and January 12, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint and first amended complaint for Breach of Contract. A request for dismissal of the entire action was filed on November 9, 2022 “under the jurisdiction of CCP 664.6.”

RULING: Granted.

Plaintiff CIT Bank moves for enforcement of the parties’ settlement agreement. The relevant terms of the agreement require the parties to cooperate in the listing and sale of the property. The sale proceeds will be left in an escrow account pending further agreement of the parties, or order of the court.

On July 28, 2022, the parties filed their stipulation for settlement of the action. The settlement agreed to a balance of $22,440, payable in monthly installments of $935. In case of default, the balance would increase to $32,038.44. Defendant(s) made $5,610 in payments, and defaulted on the March 28, 2023, thereby leaving an unpaid balance of $26,428.44.

Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6:

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.)

“Section 664.6 was enacted to provide a summary procedure for specifically enforcing a settlement contract without the need for a new lawsuit.” (Weddington Prods., Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 809.) When ruling on a section 664.6 motion, the trial court acts as a trier of fact to determine whether a settlement has occurred, which is also an implicit authorization for the trial court to interpret the terms and conditions to settlement. (Id.) The court may not “create the material terms of a settlement,” and must instead decide on what terms the parties agreed upon. (Id.; Terry v. Conlan (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1445, 1460; Osumi v. Sutton (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1355, 1360; Fiore v. Alvord (1985) 182 Cal.App.3d 561, 565-566.) “In acting upon a section 664.6 motion, the trial court must determine whether the parties entered into a valid and binding settlement of all or part of the case. In making this determination, trial judges, in the sound exercise of their discretion, may receive oral testimony or may determine the motion upon declarations alone.” (Corkland v. Boscoe (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 989, 994.)

The property sold on July 20, 2022. It’s not clear from the motion how much the sale netted, but the escrow company distributed $300,000 to both parties, plus an additional $30,000 to defendant Lison. Again, it’s not clear why this additional amount was distributed. On an unspecified date, the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power refunded $51,151.75 in fees paid. The fees are currently being held in an escrow account. [Declarations of Michelle Sorice and Craig Forry.]

Plaintiff filed a notice of settlement on September 14, 2022, and a request for dismissal “under the jurisdiction of CCP 664.6” on November 9, 2022. The court denied the motion to vacate the dismissal on September 5, 2023. The motion itself includes a copy of the executed settlement agreement. [Declaration of Steven Booska, Ex. A.] The court accepts the settlement agreement, the represented default on the agreement, and right to seek a judgment for the outstanding balance. [Booska Decl.]

The unopposed motion is granted.

Moving parties to give notice.