Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 23STCV15576, Date: 2024-10-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV15576    Hearing Date: October 31, 2024    Dept: 68

Dept. 68

Date: 10-31-24

Case # 23STCV15576

Trial Date: N/A

ENFORCE SETTLEMENT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Bank of America, N.A.

RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed/Defendant, Yeong Ryu

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Plaintiff Bank of America, N.A. alleges the existence of a $25,535.59 balance due owed by Defendant Yeong Ryu. On July 3, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint for common counts.

On October 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement. On December 29, 2023, the court dismissed the action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. On June 3, 2024, the court recused itself, thereby leading to reassignment from Department 50 to Department 68.

RULING: Granted.

Plaintiff Bank of America moves for enforcement of the parties’ settlement agreement. Plaintiff moves for entry of judgment for $24,145 stated as follows: $26,092.09, less $2,232.09 in credited payments, plus $285 in filing fees for the instant motion. [Declaration of Flint Zide, Ex. 1.] The court electronic filing system shows no opposition or reply at the time of the tentative ruling publication cutoff.

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.)

Plaintiff correctly enumerates the totals based on the stipulated agreement. The unopposed motion is therefore granted.

Moving party to give notice.