Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Case Number: 22STCV08863, Date: 2024-10-16 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: 22STCV08863, Date: 2024-10-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV08863 Hearing Date: October 16, 2024 Dept: 51

Tentative Ruling

Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Department 51

HEARING DATE: October 16, 2024

CASE NAME: Cindy Najarro v. US Health Fairs – ORG, et al.

CASE NO.: 22STCV08863

MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT, OR ALTERNATIVELY, ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANTS

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Cindy Najarro

RESPONDING PARTY(S): None as of October 11, 2024

REQUESTED RELIEF:

1. An Order compelling Defendants US Health Fairs-Org and Joshua Baerwald (Defendants) to comply with their obligations as set forth in the February 17, 2024 Settlement Agreement;

2. Alternatively, an Order entering Judgment against Defendants in the amount of $75,000.00 plus sanctions;

3. An Award of $4,185.00 in attorneys’ fees and costs.

TENTATIVE RULING:

1. Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement is GRANTED;

2. The court awards attorneys’ fees in the amount of $1,185.00.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

On March 11, 2022, Plaintiff Cindy Najarro (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants US Health Fairs – Org. and Joshua Baerwald (“Defendants.”) The complaint alleged nine causes of action based on labor code violations and wrongful termination. Plaintiff alleges that they were hired by Defendants as a full-time Clinic Manager. However, during Plaintiff’s employment, Plaintiff alleges that they were not paid the correct wage or for overtime hours. Plaintiff also allege that Defendant caused them to miss meal and rest breaks, and did not pay Plaintiff for milage and other incurred expenses. Further, after Plaintiff witnessed another individual incorrectly administering vaccines and complaint to the Human Resources manager, Plaintiff was terminated.

On May 4, 2022, Defendant US Health Fairs – Org. filed an Answer.

On May 26, 2022, Defendant Joshua Baerwald filed an Answer.

On March 6, 2024, the parties filed a Stipulation and Order for Settlement and Dismissal pursuant to CCP § 664.6.

On June 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to enforce settlement. As of October 11, 2024, Defendants have not filed an opposition.

LEGAL STANDARD:

Under Code of Civil Procedure, section 664.6:¿

¿
(a)¿If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside¿of¿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.¿

(b) For purposes of this section, a writing is signed by a party if it is signed by any of the following:¿

(1) The party.¿

(2) An attorney who represents the party.¿

(3) If the party is an insurer, an agent who is authorized in writing by the insurer to sign on the insurer's behalf.”¿

ANALYSIS:

Compel Compliance

Plaintiff moves the court to enforce the settlement reached between the parties because Defendants have failed to make the requisite payments. Plaintiff seeks judgment against Defendants in the amount of $75,000.00 plus $4,185.00 in attorneys’ fees.

The court agrees with Plaintiff that it retained jurisdiction over this matter to enforce the Settlement Agreement. Notably, the parties Stipulated on March 6, 2024 under CCP § 664.6 for the court to retain jurisdiction. (Milon Decl., Exhibit 3.) The Settlement Agreement also provides that the court retains jurisdiction pursuant to CCP § 664.6. (Milon Decl., Exhibit 1, item 19.) Accordingly, the court may enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

Per the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Defendants were to pay the first installment of $15,000.00 within thirty days following receipt of Plaintiff’s signature on the Settlement Agreement. (Milon Decl., Exhibit 1, item 1A.) Plaintiff performed. (Milon Decl. ¶ 4.) Defendants have not made any payments. (Milon Decl. ¶¶ 6, 7.)

Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to enforce settlement is GRANTED.

Attorneys’ Fees

With respect to attorney fees and costs, unless they are specifically provided for by statute (e.g., Cal. Code Civ. Proc. (CCP) §§ 1032, et seq.), the measure and mode of compensation of attorneys and counselors at law is left to the agreement, express or implied, of the parties.¿(CCP § 1021.)

Here, attorneys’ fees are warranted. First, the Settlement Agreement provides for them in the context of bringing or defending against a motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement. (Exhibit 1, Item 14.) Second, Defendants did not file an opposition, so, for the purposes of the attorneys’ fee clause, Plaintiff is the prevailing party. However, Plaintiff’s request for $4,185.00 is unreasonable. This is a straightforward motion that did not require 3.5 hours, let alone 3.5 hours performed by a seasoned attorney with 18 years of experience. (Milon Decl. ¶ 8.) With no opposition, there was no need to prepare a reply. The court therefore reduces the request to 1.5 hours at counsel’s hourly rate of $750 per hour plus $60 filing fee.

Accordingly, the court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for attorneys’ fees.

CONCLUSION:

For the foregoing reasons, the Court decides the pending motion as follows:

1. Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement is GRANTED;

2. The court awards attorneys’ fees in the amount of $1,185.00.

Moving party is to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 16, 2024 __________________________________ Upinder S. Kalra

Judge of the Superior Court