Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: BC551261, Date: 2022-07-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC551261    Hearing Date: July 25, 2022    Dept: 27

























      CASE NO.: BC551261





Dept. 27

1:30 p.m.

July 25, 2022









On July 10, 2014, plaintiffs Douglas Bagby (“Plaintiff”) and Nathalie Bagby filed this action against defendants Edward J. Grastorf (“Defendant”), the City of Los Angeles (“City”), and the Palisades Homeowners Association #4 (“HOA”).

On July 29, 2016, a judgment on the special verdict regarding Plaintiff and defendants HOA and City and the stipulated judgment between Plaintiff and Defendant was filed.

On May 31, 2022, Plaintiff filed this motion seeking an order enforcing the stipulated judgment he entered into with Defendant, executed on May 26, 2016, and approved on June 29, 2016, as a good faith settlement. The judgment provides that Defendant is the sole owner of a condominium unit (“The Property”) located at 1768 Palisades Drive in Pacific Palisades, California, and that Defendant will be permitted to occupy the premises until March 31, 2021, at which point Plaintiff shall have the right to assume possession of The Property and have the right to rent it out and collect the rents on The Property during the remainder of the life of Defendant, although The Property may remain in Defendant’s name for the remainder of Defendant’s life.


“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.) The court may interpret the terms and conditions to settlement (Fiore v. Alvord (1985) 182 Cal.App.3d 561, 566), but the court may not create material terms of a settlement, as opposed to deciding what terms the parties themselves have previously agreed upon (Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 810).


          On June 22, 2022, the Court held a hearing on this motion and posted the following tentative order (in pertinent part):

A copy of the judgment and accompanying stipulated judgment is attached as Exhibit A of Plaintiff’s Declaration. (Bagby Decl., Ex. A.) The stipulated judgment provides that Defendant is permitted to ‘continue to occupy The Property until the first of the following events: . . . (h) [Defendant] failing to comply with his obligations pursuant to this judgment, or (i) by March 31, 2021, whichever event first occurs.’ (Plaintiff’s Ex. A, p. 9, ¶ 5.) It also provides that Defendant’s right to collect rental income on The Property is assigned to Plaintiff effective upon termination of Defendant’s right to occupy the Property. Additionally, according to the amended default judgment attached as Exhibit D and filed on July 23, 2020, in Case No. BC663174, the stipulated judgment filed in the instant case was modified to eliminate any rights and interest held by Joseph D. Davis.


Plaintiff contends Defendant did not provide account statements for the years 2019 and 2020 as required by the judgment and, therefore, he had the right to demand Defendant move out of The Property earlier than March 31, 2021. (Bagby Decl., ¶ 4.) Plaintiff states he has delayed in making such a demand until after March 31, 2021, and requests the Court order Defendant, or his representative, to comply with the judgment and relinquish possession of The Property. Plaintiff also requests the Court order Defendant pay $4,800 for each month after March 31, 2021, less a credit for any payments made for property taxes and homeowners association dues, and $157.80 per day for every day Defendant remains in the property after the date of this hearing. Plaintiff submits a declaration from Joyce Spector, a licensed real estate salesperson. Ms. Spector estimates that the Property would have leased at all times after April 1, 2021, for approximately $4,800 per month and $5,200 to $5,400 a month, if updated. (Spector Decl., ¶ 2.)


          In the absence of any evidence from Defendant contesting the market rental value of The Property or the violation of the terms of the Stipulated Judgment, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.

At the hearing on June 22, 2022, the Court did not adopt the above tentative ruling. Instead, the Court continued the hearing to July 25, 2022, after conferring with the parties regarding the motion, to permit the Defendant an opportunity to respond. However, since the date of that hearing on June 22, 2022, no other papers have been filed by either party.

Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion. 


            The Motion to Enforce Settlement is GRANTED.

          The Court orders Plaintiff to file and serve a proposed order within ten (10) days of this ruling.

Moving party to give notice. 

          Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court’s 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.