Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 22STCV25531, Date: 2024-10-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV25531    Hearing Date: October 31, 2024    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     October 31, 2024                   TRIAL DATE: VACATED

CASE:                         Paul Antriasian, et al. v. Candace Evans, et al.

CASE NO.:                 22STCV25531           

MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiffs Paul Antriasian and Victoria Wouk

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendants Candace Evans, Stephanie Warren, and Americas Hydroponics and Garden Center LLC

CASE HISTORY:

·         08/08/22: Complaint filed.

·         09/29/22: Cross-Complaint filed.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is an action for breach of contract, fraud, and conversion. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to make agreed-upon payments to purchase a business owned and operated by Plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs move to enforce a settlement and for attorney’s fees.

TENTATIVE RULING:

            Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enforce Settlement is GRANTED.

            Plaintiffs are directed to prepare a proposed judgment in conformity with the Court’s order to be served on all parties and filed within 10 days of this order.

            Plaintiffs’ request for attorney’s fees is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are awarded attorney’s fees in the amount of $1,960 for enforcement of the settlement.

DISCUSSION:

Plaintiffs move to enforce a settlement and for attorney’s fees.

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 contract construction to interpret the terms 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.)

Procedural Posture of Motion

            Plaintiffs originally presented this motion as an ex parte application for the same relief, filed on September 12, 2024. On September 18, 2024, the Court denied the application, but specially set a hearing on a Motion to Enforce Settlement for October 31, 2024. (September 18, 2024 Minute Order.) The ex parte application was deemed the moving papers, with an opposition and reply brief to be served and filed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(b). (Id.)

            Although Defendants filed an initial opposition to the ex parte application on September 17, 2024 at 7:52 PM, and an amended opposition at 9:02 PM that same date, no separate opposition was filed after the Court’s September 18 ruling. Plaintiffs filed a reply brief on October 24, 2024 which addresses the amended opposition. The Court therefore construes the Amended Opposition filed September 17 as the opposition to the motion to enforce settlement, and will consider that opposition on its merits.

Enforcement of Settlement

            At a Final Status Conference on March 27, 2024, counsel for Plaintiffs appeared and reported that the parties had reached a settlement following mediation. (March 27, 2024 Minute Order.) Plaintiffs presented a copy of the settlement agreement with their ex parte application, which is dated March 18, 2024 and signed by all parties. (Ex Parte App. Exh. B.) The relevant terms of the settlement are that Defendants Warren and Evans will pay Plaintiffs the sum of $100,000 on or before May 18, 2024 in exchange for a dismissal and release of claims. (Id. §§ 1-2.) The settlement expressly provides for the Court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. (Id. § 4.)

            Plaintiffs contend that Defendants never paid the sum owed under the settlement agreement. (Declaration of Paul Antriasian ISO App. ¶ 2.) In response, Defendants contend that the parties subsequently agreed, through email correspondence between their counsel, to separate the payment into two installments; the first installment for $30,000 due by July 8, 2024, and the remaining balance due by August 15, 2024. (Defendants’ Exh. A.) Defendants claim that they attempted to make the first payment, but were notified on July 12 that the wire transfer was unsuccessful, and notified Plaintiffs on July 15 of the issue. (Id.) Defendants then assert that they received “mixed messaging” and were uncertain of the posture of this dispute. This contention is not supported by evidence, however, and, in any event, it remains undisputed that no money has been paid, whatever the payment schedule. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to an order entering judgment for the sum owed under the settlement agreement.

Attorney’s Fees

            Plaintiffs also request an award of attorney’s fees in the amount of $4,097.50 pursuant to the terms of the settlement. The settlement expressly provides for an award of “reasonable attorney’s fees required to enforce the terms” of the settlement. (Plaintiffs’ Exh. B. § 4.)

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 6.5 hours of attorney time at his customary rate of $475 per hour, plus 2 anticipated hours for the hearing on this motion and $60 in filing fees. (Declaration of Armen F. Papazian ISO App. ¶ 7.) This request is excessive in light of Plaintiffs’ counsel’s considerable experience spanning over two decades. (Id.) It should not have taken 6.5 hours of attorney time for a straightforward motion such as this. The Court will therefore award fees reflecting 4 total hours of attorney time, plus costs, for a total of $1,960 in attorney’s fees and costs.  

CONCLUSION:

            Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enforce Settlement is GRANTED.

            Plaintiffs are directed to prepare a proposed judgment in conformity with the Court’s order to be served on all parties and filed within 10 days of this order.

            Plaintiffs’ request for attorney’s fees is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are awarded attorney’s fees in the amount of $1,960 for enforcement of the settlement.

            Moving Parties to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  October 31, 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.