Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 23STCV03744, Date: 2025-02-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV03744    Hearing Date: February 26, 2025    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

Plaintiff Ace Investment Services, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on February 21, 2023 against Defendants Status Collection & Co., Inc. and Jeremiah Spielman. The Complaint alleges one cause of action for breach of contract.

Plaintiff’s counsel indicates that by a “Mutual Release Settlement Agreement” dated June 3, 2024, “the parties settled their disputes in the instant action.” (Bidgoli Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. 1.)

On July 7, 2024, the Court issued an Order in this action providing, inter alia, that “[t]he Court, having reviewed the above stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing, orders that the parties' joint request is GRANTED, and the Court shall retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement, pursuant to C.C.P. § 664.6, even after dismissal of this case. The case is dismisseed [sic] without prejudice…”

Plaintiff now moves for “an order enforcing the terms of the settlement agreement between the parties pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 664.6 and for attorney’s fees and costs…” The motion is unopposed.

Discussion

“If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside of 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 the parties to the settlement agreement or their counsel stipulate in writing or orally before the court, the court may dismiss the case as to the settling parties without prejudice and retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6, subd. (a).)  

“Although a judge hearing a section 664.6 motion may receive evidence, determine disputed facts, and enter the terms of a settlement agreement as a judgment, nothing in section 664.6 authorizes a judge to create the material terms of a settlement, as opposed to deciding what terms the parties themselves have previously agreed upon.” (Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 810 [internal citations omitted, emphasis in original].)

As set forth above, Plaintiff indicates that the parties entered into a Mutual Release Settlement Agreement (herein, the “Settlement Agreement”). (Bidgoli Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. 1.) The Settlement Agreement provides, inter alia, that “[t]his Mutual Release Settlement Agreement (the ‘Agreement’) is entered into as of the date of the latest signature below (the ‘Effective Date’) by and between Ace Investment Services, LLC…and Status Collection & CO., Inc., and Jeremiah Spielman…” (Bidgoli Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. 1, p. 1.) Each of the signatures on the Settlement Agreement appear above the dates “6/3/24.” (Bidgoli Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. 1, p. 5.)

The Settlement Agreement further provides that “Defendants shall pay to Plaintiff the total sum of Forty Thousand Dollars and Zero Cents ($40,000.00) (the ‘Settlement Amount’) as described herein. The first payment in the amount of Twenty Thousand Dollars and Zero Cents ($20,000.00) shall be made thirty (30) days from the Effective Date and the second payment amount of Twenty Thousand Dollars and Zero Cents ($20,000.00) shall be made sixty (60) days from the Effective Date. Both payments shall be made by a bank issued cashier’s check in U.S. dollars made payable to Ace Investment Services, LLC…” (Bidgoli Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. 1, ¶ 2(a).) In addition, the Settlement Agreement provides that “[t]he Settling Parties further agree, acknowledge and stipulate that the Court in the Action shall retain jurisdiction over the Settling Parties to determine any motion brought pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 664.6.” (Bidgoli Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. 1, ¶ 11.)

In his supporting declaration, Plaintiff’s counsel Jose Hernandez states that “[o]n July 3, 2024, Plaintiff not having received the first payment from Defendants, I sent an E-mail to Defendants’ counsel notifying him [sic] that pursuant to the Settlement Agreement between the parties, Defendants’ first payment was due and Plaintiff has not received payment, and that Defendants were in breach, and provided Defendants with 30 days to cure.” (Hernandez Decl., ¶ 4.) Plaintiff’s Manager states that “[o]n or about August 3, 2024, I received a check from the Defendants as the first payment toward the settlement amount for MUTUAL RELEASE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT…dated June 3, 2024, between Plaintiff and Defendants…On or about September 5, 2024, I received a notice from Plaintiff’s bank that Defendants’ check for the first payment was being returned due to insufficient funds and a $15.00 fee was charged to Plaintiff’s [sic].” (Karawia Decl., ¶¶ 3-4.)

Plaintiff’s counsel Jose Hernandez also states that “[o]n August 5, 2024, I contacted Defendants’ counsel via E-mail, stating that Defendants’ second payment is overdue, and Defendants are in default, and provided Defendants with 30 days to cure.” (Hernandez Decl., ¶ 5.) Plaintiff’s counsel states that “[a]s of the date of the filing of this motion, Defendants’ counsel has yet to provide a response, no [sic] and Defendants have not yet made a payment under the terms of the Agreement.” (Hernandez Decl., ¶ 6.)

As discussed, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, “[i]f parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside of 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.” As set forth above, Plaintiff provides evidence that the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement here. (Bidgoli Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. 1.) As further discussed, the parties’ Settlement Agreement provides, inter alia, that “[t]he Settling Parties…agree, acknowledge and stipulate that the Court in the Action shall retain jurisdiction over the Settling Parties to determine any motion brought pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 664.6.” (Bidgoli Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. 1, ¶ 11.)

Based on the foregoing, and in light of the lack of any opposition, the Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated grounds for the Court to enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the parties’ Settlement Agreement.

Plaintiff states that it seeks a judgment “against Defendants STATUS COLLECTION & CO., INC., and JEREMIAH SPIELMAN; in the principal amount of $40,000.00, plus attorney’s fees and court costs incurred herein in the amount of $10,641.20 for bringing the instant motion.” (Mot. at p. 2:3-5.) As set forth above, the parties’ Settlement Agreement provides, inter alia, that “Defendants shall pay to Plaintiff the total sum of Forty Thousand Dollars and Zero Cents ($40,000.00) (the ‘Settlement Amount’) as described herein.” (Bidgoli Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. 1, ¶ 2(a).)

As to Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees and costs, the Settlement Agreement provides that “[t]he Parties shall each bear their own attorney’s fees and other expenses incurred as a result of the dispute to which this Agreement relates, including expenses for the negotiation and preparation of this Agreement. If any legal action is commenced to interpret, enforce, or recover damages for the breach of any term of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in connection with that action, in addition to costs of suit.” (Bidgoli Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. 1, ¶ 8.)

Plaintiff’s counsel Jose Hernandez states that “[m]y hourly rate for this case is $395.00 per hour. In preparing this Motion I have expended 2.3 hours as listed below, for a total attorney’s fees of $908.50:…0.5 hrs Review the file, including e-mails, and the Settlement Agreements…1.0 hrs Draft DECLARATION OF JOSE HERNANDEZ…0.8 hrs Draft DECLARATION OF OUSAMA KARAWIA…” (Hernandez Decl., ¶ 7.) In addition, Plaintiff’s counsel Rod Bidgoli states that “[m]y hourly rate for this case is $695.00 per hour. In preparing this Motion I have expended 9.9 hours as listed below, for a total attorney’s fees of $6,880.50:…2.5 hrs Legal research re CCP 664.6…0.8 hrs Review the file, including e-mails, and the Settlement Agreement, and the stipulations…3.9 hrs Draft MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT and MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES…1.5 hrs Draft DECLARATION OF ROD BIDGOLI…0.3 hrs Review and edit the Declaration of Ousama Karawia…0.9 hrs Communicate with client re Motion and declaration of Ousama Karawia.” (Bidgoli Decl., ¶ 8.) Mr. Bidgoli also states that “[i]n addition to the foregoing time already spent, I anticipate spending approximately 2.0 hours in preparation of a Reply to Defendant’s opposition. I also anticipate to spend [sic] approximately 2.0 hours to appear at the hearing in this matter…Additionally, Plaintiff will incur $60.00 in court motion filing fees and $12.20 in electronic filing fees associated with bringing this Motion.” (Bidgoli Decl., ¶¶ 9-10.)

As set forth above, the instant motion is unopposed. Thus, the Court deducts $1,390.00 (2 hours x $695/hr) from the total amount requested by Plaintiff. Additionally, the Court finds the amount of fees to be unreasonable. There should not have been a need for 1.5 hours of legal research regarding CCP section 664.6 at the rate of $695 (reduction of $1737.50). Additionally, the motion could have been prepared by counsel at the lower rate of $395 (reduction of $1,170). The Court thus awards Plaintiff $6,343.70 in attorney’s fees and costs ($10,641.20 - $4,297.56). 

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to enforce settlement agreement is granted. The Court grants Plaintiff’s request for judgment against Defendants in the total amount of $46,343.70 ($40,000.00 + $6,343.70).  

Plaintiff is ordered to provide notice of this Order. 

DATED:  February 26, 2025                    ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court