Judge: Thomas Falls, Case: 20PSCV00461, Date: 2023-02-16 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, attorneys are advised to check this website to determine if any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling.

Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Dept. O at 909-802-1126 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. Submission on the tentative does not bind the court to adopt the tentative ruling at the hearing should the opposing party appear and convince the court of further modification during oral argument.

The Tentative Ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such filing will be considered by the Court in the absence of permission first obtained following ex-parte application therefore.

Case Number: 20PSCV00461    Hearing Date: February 16, 2023    Dept: O

Hearing Date:                         Thursday, February 16, 2022

Defendants JPMorgan Chase’s and Joey Ma’s Motion to ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AND DEPOSIT FUNDS WITH COURT

Responding Party: Unopposed as of 12/29 (due 9 court days before hearing)

Tentative Ruling

Defendants JPMorgan Chase’s and Joey Ma’s Motion to ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AND DEPOSIT FUNDS WITH COURT is GRANTED.

Background

Plaintiff Larry Lee (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows: On or about September 18, 2003, Plaintiff purchased the property located at 720 Golden Springs Dr. #B, Diamond Bar, 91765 (“subject property”). Plaintiff met Sharon Zhang who coerced Plaintiff into taking out a home equity line of credit (“HELOC”) of $150,000.00 on the subject property. Zhang then manipulated Plaintiff into transferring 50% of the subject property to Zhang by convincing Plaintiff that they were married. Even though the HELOC was paid in full, Zhang told Plaintiff that he was behind on payments. Thereafter, Zhang conspired Joey Ma, an employee of JPMorgan Chase Bank, to transfer the rest of the subject property so that Zhang was 100% owner of same. Zhang also forced Plaintiff to sign a Power of Attorney.

On August 16, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”), asserting causes of action against Zhang, Chiang, Ma, JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A. (erroneously sued as “JP Morgan Chase, N.A.” and Does 1-10 for:

            1. Elder Abuse,

            2. Fraud (3 counts),

            3. Fraudulent Concealment,

            4. Breach of Fiduciary Duty;

            5. Cancellation of Written Instrument (two counts),

            6. Quiet Title,

            7. Constructive Trust

On December 13, 2021, Defendants JPMorgan Chase and Joey Ma filed a Motion to Determine Good Faith Settlement (“Motion”).

On January 13, 2022, Defense Counsel for Defendant Oliver Chiang filed a motion to be relieved as counsel.

On February 9, 2022, the court granted Defendant’s Counsel’s request to be relieved as counsel.

The court also continued the hearing on the good faith settlement to 05/12/2022 to provide Defendant Chiang with time to secure new counsel.

On May 12, 2022, the court granted the motion to determine good faith settlement, which notably was unopposed by Plaintiff.

On November 14, 2022, Defendants filed the instant motion to enforce the settlement, which is again unopposed by Plaintiff.

On December 27, 2022, DEFENDANTS filed a Non-Receipt Of Opposition To Motion To Enforce Settlement And Deposit Funds With Court.

On January 4, 2023, after oral argument, the court continued the matter.

Legal Standard

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 664.6, “if 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.)  The court must determine whether the settlement agreement is valid and binding. (Kohn v. Jaymar-Ruby (1994) 23 Cal. App. 4th 1530, 1533) (emphasis added). “In order to be enforceable pursuant to the summary procedures of section 664.6, a settlement agreement must either be entered into orally before a court … or must be in writing and signed by the parties.” (Weddington Prods., Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 810.) Courts will not set aside a valid settlement agreement absent fraud, undue influence, or excusable neglect. (Zamora v. Clayborn Contracting Group, Inc. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 249, 260; see also Hulsey v. Elsinore Parachute Center (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 333, 339; Fraters Glass & Paint Co. v. Southwestern Const. Co. (1930) 107 Cal.App.1, 6.) 

Discussion

Here, there is no dispute that the parties reached a settlement that was memorialized into a written settlement agreement signed by the parties. In fact, this court determined there was a good faith settlement.  And as part of the settlement, Plaintiff agreed that he would provide a Form W-9 for himself and any person that would be payee of the settlement funds.

Now, addressing Defendant Chiang’s concern that Plaintiff’s conservator, Natalie Wei, may have been appointed his conservator under false pretenses, that is an issue for the probate court. What the court has before it is letters of conservatorship (the “Letters”) that were entered by the Probate Court on December 17, 2020. Attachment 3d provides in pertinent part: “Conservator(s) shall have the power to pay, collect, compromise, arbitrate, or otherwise adjust claims, debts, medical expenses, caretaker or housekeeping expenses, or any other personal expenses, or demands of the Conservatee’s estate.” Therefore, as the Letters demonstrate that the conservator had (and retains) the power and authority to compromise claims without Probate Court approval, then the conservator has the authority to enforce this settlement.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Defendants JPMorgan Chase’s and Joey Ma’s Motion to ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AND DEPOSIT FUNDS WITH COURT is GRANTED.