Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 20STCV15786, Date: 2025-05-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV15786    Hearing Date: May 13, 2025    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     May 13, 2025                         JUDGMENT: September 16, 2024

CASE:                         James Weldon Schott v. Miguel A. Melgoza

CASE NO.:                 20STCV15786           

MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff James Weldon Schott

RESPONDING PARTY(S): No response on eCourt as of 05/08/25

CASE HISTORY:

·         04/24/20: Complaint filed.

·         09/27/22: First Amended Complaint filed.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is an action for partition of a parcel of real property and for fraud, conversion, and breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant induced him to loan money for the purchase of the property to operate it as a dispensary.

Plaintiff moves to enforce a settlement.

TENTATIVE RULING:

            Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Settlement is GRANTED. Plaintiff is authorized to unilaterally carry out the partition and sale of the subject property pursuant to the terms of the Stipulated Judgment and to act on behalf of both parties to effectuate the Stipulated Judgment.

DISCUSSION:

Plaintiff moves to enforce a settlement.

//

//

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 September 16, 2024, the Court entered judgment pursuant to a stipulation by the parties for settlement of this action. As reflected in that judgment, the parties agreed that Defendant Melgoza owed Plaintiff Schott a total of $538,000 as the outstanding balance, including principal, interest, costs, and attorney’s fees through April 25, 2024, on the loan that is the subject of this action. (Stipulated Judgment ¶ 4.) However, the parties agreed that this debt obligation would be fully satisfied by a payment of $525,000 so long as that payment was made within 120 days of entry of judgment. (Id. ¶ 9.) Otherwise, the amount of the obligation would be the original $538,000 plus 10% interest per annum. (Id. ¶ 10.) The parties agreed that Defendant was to immediately proceed with a refinance of the property to satisfy that debt obligation, in exchange for a transfer of Plaintiff’s interest in the property to Defendant at the completion of that refinancing. (Id. ¶ 5.) The refinancing was to be completed within 90 days of the judgment. (Id.) If payment could not be completed within 90 days, the Parties would instead cooperate to list and sell the property forthwith, with the obligation to be paid in full out of the proceeds, regardless of Defendant’s interest in the proceeds. (Id. ¶¶ 6-7.) The parties also agreed that Defendant would indemnify and hold Plaintiff harmless from any obligations as to the related Deed of Trust held by Kitty Wong. (Id. ¶ 8.) The parties stipulated to the Court’s retention of jurisdiction. (Id. ¶ 12.)

            Plaintiff states that Defendant has not complied with his obligations under the settlement. Plaintiff was served with Notice of Entry of the Stipulated Judgment on September 23, 2024. (Declaration of Matthew T. Ward ISO Mot. ¶ 2; Exh. J.) Defendant never made any payments on the outstanding debt obligation. (Declaration of James Weldon Schott ISO Mot. ¶ 5.) Although Defendant agreed to the sale of the property on December 16, 2024, Plaintiff states that Defendant has been otherwise uncommunicative. (Ward Decl. ¶ 9; Exh. H.) Crucially, Defendant has not assented to the proposed listing agreement prepared by Plaintiff, which is a necessary step to listing the property for sale. (Id. ¶¶ 10-11; Exh. I.) Plaintiff therefore seeks an order compelling Defendant’s execution of the listing agreement. Given Defendant’s prolonged absence and the lack of an opposition, the Court sees little value in issuing a further order to comply with the terms of the settlement. Instead, the Court will grant alternative relief by authorizing Plaintiff to execute the listing agreement and proceed with the partition and sale of the property on Defendant’s behalf.

Request for OSC Re: Contempt

Plaintiff also requests that the Court issue an Order to Show Cause Re: Contempt for Defendant’s failure to proceed under the Stipulated Judgment. The Court declines to impose such an extraordinary remedy given the nature of this motion.

CONCLUSION:

            Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Settlement is GRANTED. Plaintiff is authorized to unilaterally carry out the partition and sale of the subject property pursuant to the terms of the Stipulated Judgment and to act on behalf of both parties to effectuate the Stipulated Judgment.

            Plaintiff’s request for issuance of an Order to Show Cause re Contempt is DENIED.

            Moving party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  May 13, 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.