Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 19STCV26804, Date: 2024-09-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV26804    Hearing Date: September 30, 2024    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     September 30, 2024               DISMISSAL: January 28, 2022

CASE:                         Felipe Padron Alvarado, Co-Trustee of the Felipe Padron Alvarado And Maria Lucia Padron Living Trust, et al. v. Jaime Renteria

CASE NO.:                 19STCV26804           

MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiffs Felipe Padron Alvarado & Maria Lucia Padron

RESPONDING PARTY(S): No response on eCourt as of 09/24/24

CASE HISTORY:

·         07/30/19: Complaint filed.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This was an action for partition of real property and dissolution of partnership. On January 28, 2022, the parties reached a settlement and dismissed the action, with the Court retaining jurisdiction to enforce the settlement.

Plaintiffs move to enforce the settlement agreement.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enforce Settlement is DENIED.

DISCUSSION:

Plaintiffs move to enforce the settlement agreement.

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.)

Analysis

            On January 28, 2022, the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release of Claims to dispose of the subject property and apportion the proceeds from sale, thereby resolving the disputes asserted in the Complaint. (See Plaintiffs’ Exh. A.) The Court entered dismissal of the Complaint pursuant to that agreement and retained jurisdiction by agreement of the parties pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. (See January 28, 2022 Minute Order.)

            Counsel for Plaintiffs states that although the subject property was listed for sale, the property has not yet been sold. (Declaration of Frank A. Sanzo ISO Mot. lines 10-11.) Defendant Renteria passed away on October 5, 2022, and his spouse was appointed administrator of the estate. (Id. lines 11:13.) Plaintiffs appear to argue that Defendant’s successor-in-interest has not complied with the Settlement, but do not specify how estate has breached the agreement. The Court therefore finds that Plaintiffs have not demonstrated a basis for an order enforcing the settlement.

CONCLUSION:

            Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enforce Settlement is DENIED.

            Moving Parties to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  September 30, 2024                           ___________________________________

                                                                                    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.