This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 02/16/2021 at 07:56:43 (UTC).

HABASHY LAW FIRM, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS SEUN LEE, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 07/28/2020 HABASHY LAW FIRM, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against SEUN LEE. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JAMES E. BLANCARTE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******6318

  • Filing Date:

    07/28/2020

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JAMES E. BLANCARTE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

HABASHY LAW FIRM A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Defendants

LEE SEUN

EL TACO OF CALIFORNIA INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

EL TACO 2010 INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

HABASHY JOHN REFAAT

BUDA TIFFANY

Defendant Attorney

CHANG YOUNG K

 

Court Documents

Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment - Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

10/14/2020: Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment - Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

10/14/2020: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Association of Attorney - Association of Attorney

10/7/2020: Association of Attorney - Association of Attorney

Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

8/31/2020: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

8/31/2020: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

8/31/2020: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Answer - Answer

9/16/2020: Answer - Answer

Notice of Related Case - Notice of Related Case

7/30/2020: Notice of Related Case - Notice of Related Case

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

7/28/2020: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

Summons - Summons on Complaint

7/28/2020: Summons - Summons on Complaint

Complaint - Complaint

7/28/2020: Complaint - Complaint

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

7/28/2020: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/01/2023
  • Hearing08/01/2023 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/25/2022
  • Hearing01/25/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/14/2020
  • DocketRequest for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by: HABASHY LAW FIRM, a California corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/14/2020
  • DocketNotice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/07/2020
  • DocketAssociation of Attorney; Filed by: HABASHY LAW FIRM, a California corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/16/2020
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by: SEUN LEE (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2020
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: HABASHY LAW FIRM, a California corporation (Plaintiff); As to: EL TACO 2010, INC., a California corporation (Defendant); Proof of Mailing Date: 08/19/2020; Service Cost: 185.75; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2020
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: HABASHY LAW FIRM, a California corporation (Plaintiff); As to: SEUN LEE (Defendant); Proof of Mailing Date: 08/31/2020; Service Cost: 105.75; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2020
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: HABASHY LAW FIRM, a California corporation (Plaintiff); As to: EL TACO OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a California corporation (Defendant); Proof of Mailing Date: 08/19/2020; Service Cost: 105.75; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2020
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 01/25/2022 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 08/01/2023 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: HABASHY LAW FIRM, a California corporation (Plaintiff); As to: SEUN LEE (Defendant); EL TACO OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a California corporation (Defendant); EL TACO 2010, INC., a California corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2020
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: HABASHY LAW FIRM, a California corporation (Plaintiff); As to: SEUN LEE (Defendant); EL TACO OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a California corporation (Defendant); EL TACO 2010, INC., a California corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2020
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2020
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 25 Spring Street Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b"

Case Number: 20STLC06318 Hearing Date: August 5, 2021 Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO\r\nSTIPULATION OF THE PARTIES

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff\r\nHabashy Law Firm

\r\n\r\n

RESP. PARTY: None

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT

\r\n\r\n

(CCP § 664.6)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

TENTATIVE RULING:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff Habashy Law Firm’s Motion\r\nfor Entry of Judgment is DENIED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

SERVICE: \r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

[X]\r\nProof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

\r\n\r\n

[X]\r\nCorrect Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

\r\n\r\n

[X]\r\n16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

OPPOSITION: None filed as of August\r\n3, 2021 [ ] Late [X]\r\nNone

\r\n\r\n

REPLY: None filed as\r\nof August 3, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

ANALYSIS:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

I. \r\nBackground\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On July 28, 2020, Plaintiff Habashy Law Firm\r\n(“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Seun Lee (“Lee”), El Taco of California,\r\nInc., and El Taco 2010, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”). Defendant Lee filed\r\nan Answer on September 16, 2020.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Entry of Judgment\r\nPursuant to Stipulation of the Parties (the “Motion”) on February 17, 2021. No\r\nopposition was filed.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

II. \r\nLegal\r\nStandard

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Under Code of Civil Procedure, section 664.6:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n“(a) If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing\r\nsigned by the parties outside of the presence of the court or orally\r\nbefore the court, for settlement of the case, or part thereof, the court, upon\r\nmotion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement. If\r\nrequested by the parties, the court may retain jurisdiction over the parties to\r\nenforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the\r\nsettlement.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

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

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

(1) The party.

\r\n\r\n

(2) An attorney who represents the party.

\r\n\r\n

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

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

(Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6.)\r\n(Emphasis added.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

III. \r\nDiscussion\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff explains that in 2016, it filed a lawsuit in\r\nLos Angeles Superior Court entitled Habashy Law Firm v. El Taco, et al., Case\r\nNo. BC624519 (the “Prior Action”) against Defendants. (Mot., p. 3.) The parties\r\nexecuted a Settlement Agreement and Stipulation for Entry of Judgment to settle\r\nthe Prior Action in June 2017. (Id., Habashy Decl., ¶¶ 7-9, Exhs. 1, 2.)\r\nThe Prior Action was dismissed without first expressly requesting that the\r\nCourt retain jurisdiction under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 to\r\nenforce the Settlement Agreement and Stipulation. (Id. at p. 4, Habashy\r\nDecl., ¶ 13.) Plaintiff moved for entry of judgment in the Prior Action on\r\nApril 9, 2019, but the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion on the basis that it\r\nfailed to request retention of jurisdiction. (Id. at ¶ 14.) As a result,\r\nhe filed the instant action. (Id., at p. 4.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff states that Defendants\r\nmade ten $500.00 monthly payments from July 2017 through May 2018 but have\r\nfailed to make any payments from July 1, 2018 through the present. (Id.,\r\nHabashy Decl., ¶ 10.) As such, pursuant to the terms of the Settlement\r\nAgreement and Stipulation, Plaintiff requests that the Court enter a judgment\r\nagainst Defendants in the amount of $22,609.71 based on a principal amount of\r\n$20,000.00 less payments of $5,000.00, plus interest of $3,949.71 and\r\nattorney’s fees of $3,600.00. (Id. at ¶¶ 17-31.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Here, Plaintiff seeks to enforce a settlement and\r\nstipulation entered into in the Prior Action in the instant separate action. However,\r\nas discussed above, Plaintiff dismissed the Prior Action without requesting\r\nthat the Court retain jurisdiction to enforce the parties’ settlement agreement.\r\n(Id. at ¶ 13.) The Settlement Agreement and Stipulation were not entered\r\ninto during the pendency of this litigation, so the Court cannot enforce\r\nthose agreements under Section 664.6. (Viego Bancorp. Inc. v. Wood\r\n(1989) 217 Cal.App.3d 200, 206 [finding that relief under Section 664.6 was not\r\navailable to the plaintiff because the prior action, in which a settlement\r\nagreement had been reached, had been voluntarily dismissed and thus not pending\r\nat the time the Court sought to enter judgment in a new action].) Plaintiff has\r\nnot cited any authority demonstrating otherwise.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request is DENIED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

IV. \r\nConclusion\r\n& Order

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff\r\nHabashy Law Firm’s Motion for Entry of Judgment is DENIED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Moving party is ordered to give\r\nnotice.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

"
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where HABASHY LAW FIRM A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer HABASHY JOHN