Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 21STCV45351, Date: 2023-05-22 Tentative Ruling


Case Number: 21STCV45351    Hearing Date: April 25, 2024    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

 

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

 

 

HEARING DATE:     April 25, 2024                        TRIAL DATE: November 12, 2024

                                                          

CASE:                         Barry Ben-Ron et al. v. Maria De Lourdes Ruiz.

 

CASE NO.:                 21STCV45351

           

 

MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT

 

MOVING PARTY:               Cross-Defendants One Key Escrow Corp., Manuel Morales, and Ruby Tang

 

RESPONDING PARTY(S): No response on eCourt as of 04/22/24

 

CASE HISTORY:

 

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

           

            This is a breach of contract case. Plaintiffs purchased a property from Defendant which Plaintiffs allege was subject to a PACE loan. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant agreed to pay off the loan through escrow, such that the property would be transferred to Plaintiffs clear of any lien and failed to do so, despite receiving money in an amount equal to the balance on the loan, from escrow.

 

            Cross-Defendants One Key Escrow Corp., Manuel Morales, and Ruby Tang move to enforce the terms of a settlement between Cross-Defendants and Cross-Complainant.

 

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

            Cross-Defendants’ Motion to Enforce Settlement is GRANTED.

 

            Dismissal is entered on the cross-complaint as to all cross-defendants with prejudice this date.

 

//

 

//

DISCUSSION:

 

            Cross-Defendants One Key Escrow Corp., Manuel Morales, and Ruby Tang move to enforce the terms of a settlement between Cross-Defendants and Cross-Complainant.

 

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 May 31, 2023, Cross-Defendants presented Cross-Complainant with an offer to compromise pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 998 seeking a dismissal and release of claims against Cross-Defendants in exchange for a full waiver of costs. (Declaration of Derik A. Sarkesians Exh. A. pp. 3-4.) Attorney Juan Carlos Pallares, counsel for Cross-Complainant, signed that offer to signify his client’s assent on June 30, 2023, and transmitted both that signature and a separate signed acceptance back to Cross-Complainants’ counsel. (Id. Exh. A.) The signed offer was filed with the Court on September 7, 2023. However, Cross-Defendants state that Cross-Complainant has failed to execute the general release of claims and has failed to dismiss the cross-complaint. Cross-Defendants state that Cross-Complainant’s counsel represented on August 16, 2023 that his client would not sign the release until settlement was reached with all parties. (Sarkesians Decl. Exh. B.) That said, counsel for Cross-Complainant stated in the same correspondence that his client “has agreed to settle” with Cross-Defendants. (Id.) Cross-Defendants argue that by imposing conditions on executing the release of claims that were not part of the original settlement agreement, Cross-Complainant is reneging on her obligations under the agreement.

 

            Cross-Complainant has not responded to this motion and therefore does not contest Cross-Defendants’ characterization.

 

            The Court therefore finds based on the uncontroverted evidence that Cross-Complainant has not complied with her obligations under the settlement agreement. Cross-Defendants are therefore entitled to an order dismissing the cross-complaint with prejudice, pursuant to the agreement.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

            Accordingly, Cross-Defendants’ Motion to Enforce Settlement is GRANTED.

 

            Dismissal is entered on the cross-complaint as to all cross-defendants with prejudice this date.

 

            Moving parties to give notice.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

Dated: April 25, 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.