Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 20STCV19240, Date: 2024-03-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV19240    Hearing Date: March 26, 2024    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     March 26, 2024                      TRIAL DATE: VACATED

CASE:                         Rachel Rainne, et al. v. NuLife Mulholland, LLC, et al.

CASE NO.:                 20STCV19240           

MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiffs Rachel Rainne and Lisa West

RESPONDING PARTY(S): No response on eCourt as of 3/20/24

CASE HISTORY:

·         05/20/20: Complaint filed.

·         04/09/21: Defendant NuLife Mulholland, LLC dismissed.

·         04/03/23: Dismissal pursuant to settlement.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is a wage and hour action. Plaintiffs allege that they were not adequately compensated for overtime nor provided meal or rest breaks.

Plaintiffs move to enforce a settlement agreement.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enforce Settlement is GRANTED.

            Judgment is entered this date for Plaintiffs and against Defendant J.D. Meints in the amount of $8,500 plus $1,250.00 in attorney’s fees and $60 in costs.

DISCUSSION:

Plaintiffs move to enforce a 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.)

Compliance With Settlement

            On September 21, 2022, the parties entered into a written settlement agreement in full resolution of the claims brought by Plaintiffs. (Declaration of Douglas H. Hoang ISO Mot. ¶¶ 3-4., Exh. A.) Plaintiffs have provided a copy of the settlement agreement signed by all parties. In that settlement, Defendants Summit Skilled Trades and JD Meints agreed to pay Plaintiffs specified sums in exchange for dismissal of this action. (Id. Exh. A.) As relevant here, Defendant Meints agreed to pay a total of $9,500 to Plaintiffs through their counsel in two installments. The first installment for $5,000 was due within 20 days of the execution of the agreement, and the remainder was due within 50 days. (Id. Exh. A. ¶ 4.)

            Plaintiff states that Defendant Meints paid $1,000 on February 15, 2023. (Id. ¶ 5.) No other payments have been made to date. (¶¶ 6-7.) The agreement imposes no obligations on Plaintiffs beyond the release of their claims and dismissal of this case. The parties stipulated to dismissal of the action with retention of jurisdiction under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 on April 3, 2023, pursuant to paragraph 1 of the settlement. (See April 3, 2023 Stipulation, Hoang Decl. Exh. A ¶ 1.)

            As the undisputed evidence shows that Defendant Meints has not complied with his obligations, Plaintiffs are entitled to an order entering judgment for the balance of the settlement.

Attorney’s Fees

            Plaintiffs also request attorney’s fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1717. This section provides:

In any action on a contract, where the contract specifically provides that attorney’s fees and costs, which are incurred to enforce that contract, shall be awarded either to one of the parties or to the prevailing party, then the party who is determined to be the party prevailing on the contract, whether he or she is the party specified in the contract or not, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees in addition to other costs.

(Code Civ. Proc. § 1717.) Paragraph 22 of the settlement agreement empowers any party who prevails on a motion to enforce the agreement to recover reasonable attorney’s fees. (Hoang Decl. Exh. A. ¶ 22.)

Reasonable attorney’s fees shall be fixed by the Court and shall be an element of the costs of suit. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1033.5(c)(5)(B).) Reasonable attorney’s fees are ordinarily determined by the Court pursuant to the “lodestar” method, i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate. (See PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095-1096; Margolin v. Regional Planning Com. (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 999, 1004 [“California courts have consistently held that a computation of time spent on a case and the reasonable value of that time is fundamental to a determination of an appropriate attorneys' fee award.”].) In setting the hourly rate for a fee award, courts are entitled to consider the “fees customarily charged by that attorney and others in the community for similar work.” (Bihun v. AT&T Info. Sys., Inc. (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 976, 997 [affirming rate of $450 per hour], overruled on other grounds by Lakin v. Watkins Associated Indus. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 644, 664.)  The burden is on the party seeking attorney’s fees to prove the reasonableness of the fees. (Center for Biological Diversity v. County of San Bernardino (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 603, 615.) 

The Court has broad discretion in determining the amount of a reasonable attorney’s fee award, which will not be overturned absent a “manifest abuse of discretion, a prejudicial error of law, or necessary findings not supported by substantial evidence.” (Bernardi v. County of Monterey (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1379, 1393-1394.)  The Court need not explain its calculation of the amount of attorney’s fees awarded in detail; identifying the factors considered in arriving at the amount will suffice. (Ventura v. ABM Indus. Inc. (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 258, 274-275.)

            Here, Plaintiffs’ counsel states that he incurred 2.5 hours of time preparing these papers at an hourly rate of $500, plus $60 in filing fees, for a total of $1,310 in fees and costs. (Hoang Decl. ¶¶ 10-12.) The Court finds this to be a reasonable amount on a motion of this nature and will therefore award the fees and costs sought.

CONCLUSION:

            Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enforce Settlement is GRANTED.

            Judgment is entered this date for Plaintiffs and against Defendant J.D. Meints in the amount of $8,500 plus $1,250.00 in attorney’s fees and $60 in costs.

            Moving Parties to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 26, 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.