Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 21GDCV00417, Date: 2025-04-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21GDCV00417    Hearing Date: April 30, 2025    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

On March 27, 2025, plaintiffs Christopher Zarbo and Jodi Gonzalez (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this motion for the entry of judgment against defendants DVSC, Inc., Dominic F. Viloria, Shannon Viloria, and George Oliveira (collectively, “Defendants”) 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.) In hearing a section 664.6 motion, the trial court may receive evidence, determine disputed facts, and enter terms of a settlement agreement as a judgment. (Bowers v. Raymond J. Lucia Companies, Inc. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 724, 732.)

Here, Plaintiffs and Defendants entered into a settlement agreement and stipulated judgment on June 14, 2024. Defendants agreed to pay $75,000 in 35 monthly payments of $2,100 and a single payment of $1,500. (Motion, Ex. A.) The stipulated judgment, attached as Exhibit B, states that it shall not be filed with the Court unless Defendants are in default and provides that Plaintiffs may recover the total amount due under the settlement agreement at the time of the Default. (Motion, Ex. B.) The motion is also accompanied by a proposed judgment on Form JUD-100 for $75,000.

Previously, on October 31, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a copy of the executed stipulation, followed by a proposed judgment on November 5, 2024. The proposed judgment for $73,000 was rejected by the Court on December 17, 2024, because the stipulation did not support the amount sought and no supporting declarations were submitted for review.

Then, on January 21, 2025, Plaintiffs submitted a proposed judgment for $75,000 and copies of the settlement agreement and stipulation as part of a notice of errata. In a minute order dated March 20, 2025, the Court noted, “There is no admissible evidence before the Court demonstrating that conditions for a stipulated judgment have been met.”

Plaintiffs’ motion, albeit unopposed, remains inadequate because Plaintiffs still have failed to submit any admissible evidence demonstrating that the settlement agreement has been breached as to warrant a judgment of $75,000. Plaintiffs’ counsel’s declaration recites the manner in which the settlement agreement was agreed upon but does not state any facts explaining why judgment should be entered at this time, meaning that there is no admissible evidence submitted to the Court establishing that the settlement has been breached.

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED without prejudice.

Dated this 30th day of April 2025

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.