Judge Theresa M. Traber, Case Number: 21STCV40184, Date: 2023-09-11 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 21STCV40184, Date: 2023-09-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV40184 Hearing Date: September 11, 2023 Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE: September 11, 2023 TRIAL DATE: VACATED

CASE: Minghui Zheng v. California Investment Regional Center, LLC, et al

CASE NO.: 21STCV40184

(1) MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT

(2) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: INJUNCTION

MOVING PARTY: (1) (2) Plaintiff Mingui Zheng

RESPONDING PARTY(S): (1) (2) Plaintiff Minghui Zheng

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

This is an action for fraud, breach of contract, and professional negligence that was filed on November 1, 2021. Plaintiff alleges that the parties contracted to participate in the Immigration Investor Visa Program so that Plaintiff could invest in a piece of property, and conspired to forge Plaintiff’s signature on immigration documents for the purpose of diverting Plaintiff’s invested funds to a different property.

Plaintiff moves to enforce the terms of a settlement agreement entered into by the parties.

The Court also set an Order to Show Cause hearing regarding why Defendants should not be enjoined from transferring, encumbering, or hypothecating any real interest in the property that was the subject of the settlement.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Settlement is GRANTED.

Defendants, and each of them, shall be enjoined from transferring, encumbering, or hypothecating any interest in those certain real properties commonly described as 1598 Long Beach Blvd., Unit 305, Long Beach, CA 90813 (APN: 7269- 023-043) and 1598 Long Beach Blvd., Unit 206, Long Beach, CA 90813 (APN: 7269-023-032), to any person other than Plaintiff, and a copy of this injunction may be recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorder forthwith, notwithstanding the sealing of other parts of the record in this case.

DISCUSSION:

Plaintiff moves to enforce the terms of a settlement agreement entered into by the parties.

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

The parties executed a written settlement agreement at a Mandatory Settlement Conference on November 30, 2022. (Declaration of Steven L. Sugars ISO Mot. ¶¶ 4-5, Exh. 1.) Plaintiff has provided a copy of this agreement, which was signed by Defendants Zhong Fang and Michelle Hu on behalf of themselves and the corporate Defendants California Investment Regional Center, LLC, and Los Angeles City Plaza, LP. (Id.)

The relevant terms of the settlement are as follows:

Defendants shall open escrow for transferring title to Plaintiff for the real property commonly described as 1598 Long Beach Blvd., Unit 305, Long Beach, CA 90813 (APN: 7269-023-043). The plaintiff understands as of 11/30/22, there is a mortgage on the property and defendants needs time to secure a loan to pay back said loan. The escrow will be closed and Defendants shall transfer the title to plaintiff by June 30, 2023.

Defendants will pay additional payment of $120,000 by December 1, 2023. Defendants shall open escrow for transferring title to Plaintiff the real property commonly described as 1598 Long Beach Blvd., Unit 206, Long Beach, CA 90813 (APN: 7269-023-032) to Plaintiff secure the aforesaid payment.

2.2 - Time is of the essence: The parties agree that time is of the essence in this agreement.

2.5 — Stipulated Judgment: Stipulated Judgment against all Defendants who are parties to this Agreement based upon the allegations of the Complaint in CASE i #21STCV40184, which Defendants stipulate would be presumptively non-dischargeable in bankruptcy, in the Sum of $700,000, in the event of default.

(Sugars Decl. Exh. 1. ¶ 2 [emphasis in original].) The parties separately filed a joint stipulation that the Court would retain jurisdiction to enforce this settlement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 on February 15, 2023. This stipulation was signed by the Court on February 17, 2023. (February 17, 2023 Stipulation and Order.)

Performance Under Settlement

Plaintiff contends that Defendants have refused to comply with their obligations under the settlement by refusing to close escrow by June 30, 2023. Plaintiff states that Defendants provided escrow papers which show that escrow was opened, and which are dated February 22, 2023. (Sugars Decl. Exh. 3.) Plaintiff’s counsel states under penalty of perjury that escrow on the subject properties never closed. (Sugars Decl. ¶ 9.) Under the terms of the settlement, Plaintiffs’ sole obligation, other than the release of claims, was to file a Notice of Conditional Settlement with the Court within five days of the execution of the Agreement, and, after Defendants made full payment under paragraph 2, to file a request for dismissal with prejudice within 10 business days. (Sugars Decl. Exh. 1 ¶¶ 3-4.). The Court received this Notice of Settlement on December 12, 2022, more than five days after the agreement was executed. (Notice of Settlement.) Plaintiff therefore did not strictly comply with her obligations under the settlement. However, as Plaintiff has offered evidence that Defendants opened escrow pursuant to the terms of the settlement, Plaintiff has shown that this delay was excused by Defendants. Plaintiffs have therefore complied with their obligations under the settlement agreement and have demonstrated that Defendants have not reciprocated.

As Defendants have not responded to this motion, the Court concludes that Defendants have not complied with their obligations under the settlement agreement, and Plaintiffs are entitled to enforce the agreement against them.

Further, as Defendants have not responded to the Court’s Order to Show Cause Re: Injunction issued on August 15, 2023, the Court finds that an injunction should issue restraining Defendants from transferring, encumbering, or hypothecating any interest in the subject properties to any person other than Plaintiff.

CONCLUSION:

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Settlement is GRANTED.

Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 11, 2023 ___________________________________

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.