Judge Teresa A. Beaudet, Case 20STCV27741 2023-01-31 Tentative Ruling

On July 23, 2020, Plaintiff Nanci Vargas (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Vargas Association LLC (“Vargas Association”), Julio Vargas, and Flavio Fargas. The Complaint asserts seventeen causes of action.

On April 28, 2022, the parties in this action participated in a Mandatory Settlement Conference. (Seals Decl., ¶ 5.) The matter was settled by allowing Plaintiff to purchase Vargas Association for the sum of $200,000.00. (Seals Decl., ¶ 5.)

On May 20, 2022, the Court issued a minute order providing, inter alia, that “[t]he Court, having obtained a Notice of Settlement from the Parties to this action, and good cause appearing therefor, Court hereby DISMISSES the present action, without prejudice, and vacates all dates associated therewith. Pursuant to the request of the Parties, the Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the settlement of this action, pending full performance by all Parties thereto, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6. The Court orders the Complaint filed by Nanci Vargas on 07/23/2020 dismissed without prejudice. The Court retains jurisdiction to make orders to enforce any and all terms of settlement, including judgment, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 664.6.”

Plaintiff’s counsel indicates that following entry of the Court’s order, he worked with Juan Carlos Pallares, counsel for Vargas Association, to craft a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) to guide the parties during the due diligence period and through the completion of the sale of Vargas Association. (Seals Decl., ¶ 8.)

The terms of the MOU included, inter alia, that Plaintiff would make a refundable $25,000 down payment against the final purchase price, and Plaintiff made such payment to Flavio Vargas and Julio Vargas. (Seals Decl., ¶¶ 9-10.) However, Plaintiff’s counsel was informed that Flavio Vargas intended to stay as a tenant at the same premises in an adjoining unit, where he intended to operate a competing business, which was a violation of the MOU. (Seals Decl., ¶ 11.) In addition, in December of 2022, it was reported to Plaintiff’s counsel that Flavio Vargas and Julio Vargas intended to sell Vargas Association in its entirety to a third party, which was in violation of the MOU, the Operating Agreement, and the negotiations of the parties regarding the sale to Plaintiff. (Seals Decl., ¶ 12.)

Plaintiff now moves for an order vacating the prior dismissal of this case and setting a date for trial.[1] The motion is unopposed.

As set forth above, the Court ordered that “the Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the settlement of this action, pending full performance by all Parties thereto, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6.” (See May 20, 2022 Minute Order.) Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, subdivision (a), “[i]f 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.”

Plaintiff notes that a “Notice of Settlement and Request to Retain Jurisdiction Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6” (and the Order thereon) was filed in this matter on May 23, 2022. The Notice indicates, inter alia, that all of the parties in this matter stipulate that “on April 28, 2022, during the Settlement Conference ordered by this Court, Plaintiff and Defendants reached an agreement to settle all claims in this matter by agreeing to transfer all ownership to Vargas Association, LLC, from the joint ownership of Julio Vargas, Flavia Vargas, Rodolfo Vargas, and Nanci Vargas, into the sole ownership of Nanci Vargas for the sum of $200,000, and subject to the successful completion of due diligence…” (Seals Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. 4, ¶ 1.) As discussed above, Plaintiff indicates that the parties were unable to successfully complete the due diligence period and complete the sale of Vargas Association to Plaintiff.

Per the Notice of Settlement, the parties also stipulated that “pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6, the Parties request and agree that the Court retain jurisdiction over the Parties to enforce the terms of this Stipulation and the performance of all required terms of the settlement until there is full performance thereof, and that if such terms are not fulfilled, to allow Plaintiff and/or Defendants to reinstate the present action and set a date for trial thereof.” (Seals Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. 4, ¶ 3.) Plaintiff thus asserts that the Court’s powers of enforcement under Section 664.6 included the power to reinstate the present action and set a date for trial here.

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated entitlement to reinstate the present action and set a date for trial thereof, per the parties’ stipulation set forth in the May 23, 2022 Notice of Settlement.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the dismissal is granted. The Court orders that the dismissal entered on May 20, 2022 is vacated. The Court sets a trial setting conference in this matter for _________, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. in Dept. 50.

[1]The Court notes that Plaintiff also requests in the motion that “Plaintiff’s earnest money [be] ordered returned.” (Mot. at p. 3:22.) Such request is not included in Plaintiff’s notice of motion or on the caption page of the motion. The Court notes that “[a] notice of motion must state in the opening paragraph the nature of the order being sought and the grounds for issuance of the order.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1110, subd. (a).)

NANCI VARGAS, Plaintiff, vs. VARGAS ASSOCIATION LLC, et al., Defendants.	Case No.:	20STCV27741
	Hearing Date:	January 31, 2023
	Hearing Time:	10:00 a.m.
	[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO VACATE DISMISSAL AND SET DATE FOR TRIAL

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50