Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 18STCV10316, Date: 2025-05-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 18STCV10316    Hearing Date: May 6, 2025    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     May 6, 2025               TRIAL DATE: VACATED

CASE:                         Sunderipal S. Arora v. Daljeet Singh, et al.

CASE NO.:                 18STCV10316           

MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT

MOVING PARTY:               Defendants Daljeet Singh & Gurpreet Bindra

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff Surinderipal S. Arora & Cross-Defendant Sharanpreet K. Arora

CASE HISTORY:

·         12/28/18: Complaint filed.

·         06/24/19: First Amended Complaint filed.

·         02/24/20: Cross-Complaint filed

·         03/06/24: Dismissal with prejudice & retention of jurisdiction pursuant to oral settlement before the Court

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This was an action for fraud and breach of contract arising from a dispute between brothers concerning a buyout of a partnership for the management of rental properties.

Defendants Daljeet Singh & Gurpreet Bindra move to enforce a settlement agreement executed on February 20, 2024, in Court.

TENTATIVE RULING:

            Defendants’ Motion to Enforce Settlement is GRANTED.

            Defendants’ request for attorney’s fees is GRANTED in the amount of $1,800.

DISCUSSION:

Defendants Daljeet Singh & Gurpreet Bindra move to enforce a settlement agreement executed on February 20, 2024 in Court.

Legal Standard

            Enforcement of settlement agreements is governed by Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. This statute provides, in relevant part:

If the 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(a).) The Court is empowered under this section to resolve reasonable disputes over the terms of a settlement. (Machado v. Myers (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 779, 795.) The Court does not insert provisions into the parties’ agreement but applies the rules of contractual interpretation to interpretation of the settlement. (Id. at 792.) When extrinsic evidence is necessary, the Court may decide the motion on declarations alone. (Richardson v. Richardson (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 91, 97.)

Terms of Settlement

            On February 20, 2024, the parties reached a settlement of the entire case just before commencement of a jury trial. (February 20, 2024 Minute Order.) The parties retained a court reporter and read the settlement agreement into the record. (Id.) The terms of the settlement as reflected in the transcript are as follows:

Daljeet Singh and Gurpreet Bindra shall pay to Surinderpal Arora $175,000, plus an Equalizing Payment as set forth herein, and according to the terms hereof.

The Equalization Payment is the payment from Dr. Singh and Dr. Bindra to Mr. Arora in an amount representing Mr. Arora's 50 percent equity interest in Leucadia property offset by the amount of Dr. Singh and Dr. Bindra's equity interest in Browning. The Equalizing Payment to Mr. Arora shall be determined by appraisals of both the Leucadia property and the Browning property. The appraisals will be done according to standard appraisal practices. The Appraiser is to be chosen by Sharon Dandy […] The Parties are to split the cost of appraisals equally.

In addition to payment of $175,000 and the Equalizing Payment, a partnership accounting will be done as stated herein. The accounting is to determine monies into and out of the partnership as to both sides, as well as an accounting of all income received and all expenses incurred from July [2018] to present, defined as the “Separated Period,” with a determination of what is owed to the respective partners. Each side will exchange supporting documentation for the Separated Period, including all bank statements, evidence of expenditures, and rents received. The exchange will occur within 30 days of this date. Each side shall submit a cash flow statement with information as to monies received and expended along with their evidence to a neutral accountant to be selected by the parties. If the parties cannot agree on the selection of an accountant, each side shall select an accountant, and those two accountants will confer and choose a third accountant to perform the work. The neutral accountant shall prepare a report summarizing the information submitted by the parties. The neutral accountant shall not make any factual determinations, but shall accept the information as provided by the parties. Each party shall represent to the Court, the neutral accountant and each other that their information is true and correct.

Payment shall be made by the payor group holding in excess of 50 percent to bring the parties into a 50/50 position. The accounting is solely for the purposes of determining monies due to the partners from the partnership and is not to determine partnership liability issues, as those issues [have] been waived by the releases herein.

Any disputes by the parties as to the contents of the report shall be submitted to the Court for resolution via briefing with all evidence submitted therewith, and a hearing without live testimony will be held by the Court. If the Court declines to engage in this process, the parties shall retain a private neutral to decide the disputes.

Payment of the amounts referenced above to be made within 60 days of determination of the total payment amount.

Dr. Singh and Dr. Bindra shall prepare a notarized Grant Deed representing Mr. Arora's 50% interest of the Leucadia property as tenants in common and provide a copy of that document to Mr. Arora, who will use that for a 1031 exchange. Eric P. Francisconi or a member of his firm will retain the original, but will loan it to Arora's counsel upon request, and it will be returned after used as necessary. The Grant Deed will not be recorded. Upon tender of payment by Dr. Singh and Dr. Bindra to Mr. Arora, directly or to an escrow holder at the election of Mr. Arora, Mr. Arora may conduct an IRS 1031 exchange. Dr. Singh and Dr. Bindra will cooperate with Mr. Arora's 1031 exchange at no cost or obligation to them. Upon payment as set forth herein, Surinderpal Arora and Sharanpreet Arora shall provide Dr. Singh and Dr. Bindra with a Grant Deed conveying all of their right, title, and interest to the Leucadia property, at which time Surinderpal Arora and Sharanpreet Arora shall have no further interest in the Leucadia property.

Dr. Singh and Dr. Bindra shall deliver to Surinderpal Arora and Sharanpreet Arora an executed Grant Deed conveying all of their interests in the Browning property to Surinderpal Arora and Sharanpreet Arora within five days of the full execution of a written settlement agreement, or no later than March I, 2024, whichever comes first. Upon delivery of the Grant Deed, Dr. Singh and Dr. Bindra shall have no further obligation for the Browning property or any loan secured by the Browning property. Mr. Arora shall remove Dr. Singh and Dr, Bindra as obligors under any loan secured by the Browning property not later than December 31, 2024.

Mr. Arora is to release the lis pendens against the Leucadia property within five days of the full execution of a written settlement agreement, or no later than March I, 2024, whichever comes first. Dr. Singh and Dr. Bindra will release the lis pendens against the Browning property within five days of the full execution of a written settlement agreement, or no later than March I, 2024, whichever comes first.

The partnership between Dr. Singh and Dr. Bindra on the one hand and the Aroras on the other hand is dissolved upon the payments as set forth herein. This settlement agreement is the sole winding up process of that partnership.

The parties will execute whatever documents are reasonably necessary to accomplish the purposes of this agreement without the necessity of taking on further material obligations.

The parties agree that the Court shall retain jurisdiction over the parties and the action to enforce this settlement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. Upon the completion of the winding up process, the parties shall submit a request for dismissal to the Court to dismiss the action with prejudice, with each side to bear its own fees and costs, with the Court retaining jurisdiction to enforce the settlement.

Except for the obligations under this settlement, the parties release all claims against one another and their agents and representatives from all claims that were or could have been brought, in this case and waive the application of Civil Code section 1542.

In any dispute between the parties as to the terms of the settlement or enforcement of the settlement agreement, either this oral recitation or a written settlement agreement, the prevailing party will be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. This provision does not apply to the accounting dispute resolution process provided by this agreement.

The parties contemplate preparing a written settlement agreement to more fully memorialize the terms of this settlement, but the settlement is effective immediately and is effective even if the parties do not enter into a written settlement agreement.

(Declaration of Suoo Lee ISO Mot Exh. A [February 20, 2024 Transcript] pp.9:18-15:24.)

Compliance With Settlement

            Defendants contend that Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant (“the Aroras”) breached the settlement by failing to remove Defendants as obligors under the loan secured by the Browning property pursuant to the terms of the settlement. Defendants contend they delivered the Grant Deed to the Aroras, who do not dispute this contention. (See Lee Decl. ¶ 4; Opposition p.2:18-19.) However, Defendants state that the Aroras have not removed Defendants as obligors on the mortgage secured by the Browning property. (Lee Decl. ¶ 5; Exh. B.) The Aroras freely concede that they have not done so (see Opposition p.2:18-27), asserting that the $175,000 payment, the Equalizing payment, and any payment from winding up the partnership is a prerequisite to the Aroras being able to refinance the mortgage and remove Defendants as obligors. According to the Aroras, Defendants’ asserted delays in complying with these separate provisions have precluded the Aroras from following through on their own obligations. Nothing in the plain language of the Settlement Agreement supports the assertion that the termination of the Defendants’ obligations on any loan relating to the Browning property is dependent upon the payments and partnership accounting. Moreover, the Aroras offer no admissible evidence supporting the assertion that these payments are, as a practical matter, necessary to make compliance with the settlement feasible or possible. Statements in briefing are not evidence, and the conclusions by Mr. Arora in email correspondence are inadmissible hearsay. (See Plaintiff’s Exh. F.)

            In the alternative, the Aroras argue that there has been no prejudice to Defendants by their failure to comply with the Settlement Agreement. This contention is irrelevant. When a party has not complied with their contractual obligations, the Code of Civil Procedure entitles the other party to seek an order compelling compliance.

            The Court therefore finds that Defendants are entitled to an order compelling their removal as obligors from the loan documents on the Browning property.

Attorney’s Fees

            Defendants request an award of attorney’s fees as the prevailing party on this motion in the amount of $3,200. Pursuant to the express terms of the settlement, any party prevailing on an enforcement motion is entitled to the reasonable attorney’s fees incurred thereon. (Lee Decl. Exh. A. p.15:9-15.) Here, Defendants request an award of $3,200, based on 5 hours of attorney time actually incurred at $400 per hour, plus 3 anticipated hours at the same rate. (Lee Decl. ¶ 6.) The Court finds Defendants are entitled to 3 hours for drafting a short and straightforward motion to enforce and another 1.5 hours preparing the reply brief and appearing at the hearing.  Thus, the Court awards a total of $1,800, or 4.5 hours at $400 per hour.  The Court will therefore award reduced fees in the amount of $1,800.

CONCLUSION:

            Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Enforce Settlement is GRANTED.

            Defendants’ request for attorney’s fees is GRANTED in the amount of $1,800.

            Moving Parties to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 6, 2025                            ___________________________________

                                                                                    Theresa M. Traber

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

            Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.