Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 20STCV21383, Date: 2022-10-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV21383    Hearing Date: October 20, 2022    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On December 24, 2020, the Court granted a stipulation to binding arbitration filed by Plaintiffs Anibal Jose Colindres Perez and Yermin Alexander Pineda (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) and Defendant Versa Products, Inc.

On May 6, 2022, Plaintiffs entered into a settlement agreement with Defendant, with the Court retaining jurisdiction under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 for enforcement of the settlement.  (Okunor Decl. ¶ 2.)

On September 27, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce their settlement with Versa Products.  On September 28, 2022, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to immediately file Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Khelya M. Okunor or follow the necessary procedures for requesting that it be filed under seal.  Plaintiffs did not do so.

Courts may enter judgments pursuant to written settlements signed by the parties.  (Elyaoudayan v. Hoffman (2003) 104 Cal.App.4th 1421, 1428; Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6.)  Strict compliance with the statutory requirements is necessary before a court can enforce a settlement agreement.  (Sully-Miller Contracting Co. v. Gledson/Cashman Construction, Inc. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 30, 37.)  The party seeking to enforce a settlement “must first establish the agreement at issue was set forth ‘in a writing signed by the parties’ (§ 664.6) or was made orally before the court.  [Citation.]”  (Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 299, 304.)

Plaintiffs seek a judgment of $75,000.00, plus $1,260.00 in attorney fees and costs incurred for the motion.

Plaintiffs’ counsel declares that the parties entered into a settlement agreement through which Defendant agreed to pay $75,000.00 in the form of a single check within 30 days of fully executing the agreement.  (Okunor Decl. ¶ 3.)  According to Plaintiffs, the payment was due by July 8, 2022.  (Okunor Decl. ¶ 5.)  Plaintiffs did not provide a copy of the settlement agreement, and thus they did not initially establish that there was a written settlement agreement signed by the parties.  However, Defendant confirms that it was to pay $75,000.00 in one payment on June 6, 2022.  (Canchan Decl. ¶ 10; Laudadio Decl. ¶ 7.)  On June 13, 2022, Defendant still had not paid.  (Okunor Decl. ¶ 5.)  Plaintiffs received a check for $10,000.00 on July 1, 2022 as an installment payment, although a payment plan had not been discussed.  (Okunor Decl. ¶ 7; see Laudadio Decl. ¶ 3 & Ex. 1.)  In August 2022, Plaintiffs received two more $10,000.00 checks from Defendant.  (Okunor Decl. ¶¶ 10-11 & Exs. 6-7; see Laudadio Decl. ¶ 4 & Ex. 2.)  To date, $45,000.00 remains outstanding.  (Okunor Decl. ¶ 12.)

Defendant argues that Plaintiffs are not entitled to a judgment of $75,000.00 because it has already paid $30,000.00.  (Opposition at pp. 4, 7.)  All parties agree that these payments have been paid, so Plaintiffs are entitled to a judgment for only the outstanding $45,000.00.

Defendant asks the Court to allow it to make installment payments on a proposed payment schedule.  (Opposition at pp. 4, 9.)  Defendant contends it is suffering financial problems and “is not in a financial position to issue payment for the outstanding $45,000 in one lump sum.”  (Laudadio Decl. ¶ 9; see id. at ¶¶ 7-8; Opposition at p. 8.)  The Court will not renegotiate the parties’ settlement agreement, and the Court may only “enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6, subd. (a).)  It is clear that the agreement was for a single payment.  Defendant’s issuance of installment payments on a payment schedule was not a term of the settlement agreement, and Plaintiffs have not agreed to modify the agreement.  (Okunor Decl. ¶¶ 3, 7-11; Laudadio Decl. ¶ 7; Canchan Decl. ¶¶ 10, 14-15 [“Mr. Younessi contacted Defense counsel via email correspondence and advised that Plaintiffs did not agree to a payment plan (and would not agree) . . . .”], 22 [“Plaintiffs have rejected Versa’s repeated attempts to formalize an installment payment agreement.”], 23 [“Despite Plaintiffs rejection of Versa’s proposed installment payment agreement . . . .”].)

Plaintiffs also seek $1,260.00 in attorney fees and costs incurred for the motion.  Plaintiffs contend that the agreement allows them to recover their attorney fees and costs for enforcing the settlement.  (Motion at p. 6.)  However, Plaintiffs failed to provide a copy of the agreement.  Accordingly, the request for attorney fees and costs is denied.

The motion to enforce settlement is GRANTED IN PART.  Within five days, Plaintiffs are to submit a proposed judgment in the amount of $45,000.00.

A Non-Appearance Case Review re: Submission of Proposed Judgment is scheduled for 10/25/2022 at 10:00 AM in Department 48 at Stanley Mosk Courthouse.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit.  Parties intending to appear are encouraged to appear remotely and should be prepared to comply with Dept. 48’s new requirement that those attending court in person wear a surgical or N95 or KN95 mask.

         Dated this 20th day of October 2022