This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 09/17/2020 at 05:54:13 (UTC).

NEMAN BROTHERS & ASSOC., INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS NEW GEN ENTERPRISE, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 01/16/2019 NEMAN BROTHERS ASSOC , INC , A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against NEW GEN ENTERPRISE, INC , A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is WENDY CHANG. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******0573

  • Filing Date:

    01/16/2019

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

WENDY CHANG

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

NEMAN BROTHERS & ASSOC. INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Defendants

LEE SUN MI AKA SUN M LEE

INCLUSIVE DOES 1 THROUGH 50

NEW GEN ENTERPRISE INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION DBA BREEZE EVER DBA BLOOM DBA BLOOMS DBA THE BLOOM

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

TABIBI ESQ. NICO N

 

Court Documents

Judgment - Judgment by Court on Stipulation

12/10/2019: Judgment - Judgment by Court on Stipulation

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

12/10/2019: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion - Other for Entry of Judgment Pursuant to S...)

12/10/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion - Other for Entry of Judgment Pursuant to S...)

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Entry of Judgment

12/18/2019: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Entry of Judgment

Abstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims - Abstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims

12/23/2019: Abstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims - Abstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

10/7/2019: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion - Other for Entry of Judgment Pursuant to S...)

7/18/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion - Other for Entry of Judgment Pursuant to S...)

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Ruling; and Notice of Continuance of Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Judgment Pursuant to Settlement Agreement Against Defendants Ne Gen Enterprise, Inc. and Sun Mi

7/18/2019: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Ruling; and Notice of Continuance of Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Judgment Pursuant to Settlement Agreement Against Defendants Ne Gen Enterprise, Inc. and Sun Mi

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Ex Parte Application of Plaintiff)

4/25/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Ex Parte Application of Plaintiff)

Ex Parte Application (name extension) - Ex Parte Application of Plaintiff

4/25/2019: Ex Parte Application (name extension) - Ex Parte Application of Plaintiff

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

5/1/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Motion re: (name extension) - Motion re: Entry of Judgment Against Defendants New Gen Enterprise, Inc. and Sun Mi Lee aka Sun M Lee; Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Declaration of Yaghoub Nouran

5/1/2019: Motion re: (name extension) - Motion re: Entry of Judgment Against Defendants New Gen Enterprise, Inc. and Sun Mi Lee aka Sun M Lee; Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Declaration of Yaghoub Nouran

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

5/7/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

5/7/2019: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

5/7/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Complaint - Complaint

1/16/2019: Complaint - Complaint

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

1/16/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

Summons - Summons on Complaint

1/16/2019: Summons - Summons on Complaint

9 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 12/23/2019
  • DocketAbstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims; Issued by: Neman Brothers & Assoc., Inc., a California corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/18/2019
  • DocketNotice of Entry of Judgment; Filed by: Neman Brothers & Assoc., Inc., a California corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/10/2019
  • DocketStipulated judgment entered for Plaintiff Neman Brothers & Assoc., Inc., a California corporation against Defendant New Gen Enterprise, Inc., a California corporation DBA Bloom, DBA Blooms, DBA Breeze Ever, DBA The Bloom and Defendant Sun Mi Lee AKA Sun M Lee on the Complaint filed by Neman Brothers & Assoc., Inc., a California corporation on 01/16/2019 for the principal amount of $16,502.65 for a total of $16,502.65.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/10/2019
  • DocketOn the Complaint filed by Neman Brothers & Assoc., Inc., a California corporation on 01/16/2019, entered Order for Dismissal without prejudice as to Does 1 through 50, inclusive

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/10/2019
  • DocketJudgment by Court on Stipulation; Filed by: Neman Brothers & Assoc., Inc., a California corporation (Plaintiff); As to: New Gen Enterprise, Inc., a California corporation (Defendant); Sun Mi Lee (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/10/2019
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: Neman Brothers & Assoc., Inc., a California corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/10/2019
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion - Other for Entry of Judgment Pursuant to S...)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/10/2019
  • DocketHearing on Motion - Other for Entry of Judgment Pursuant to Settlement Agreement Against Defendants; Memorandum of Points and Authorities; and Declarations in Support Thereof scheduled for 12/10/2019 at 10:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94 updated: Result Date to 12/10/2019; Result Type to Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/10/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 07/15/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 12/10/2019

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/10/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 01/19/2022 at 10:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 12/10/2019

    Read MoreRead Less
15 More Docket Entries
  • 04/25/2019
  • DocketHearing on Ex Parte Application of Plaintiff scheduled for 04/25/2019 at 01:30 PM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94 updated: Result Date to 04/25/2019; Result Type to Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2019
  • DocketHearing on Ex Parte Application of Plaintiff scheduled for 04/25/2019 at 01:30 PM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/17/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 07/15/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/17/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 01/19/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/17/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Wendy Chang in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/16/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Neman Brothers & Assoc., Inc., a California corporation (Plaintiff); As to: New Gen Enterprise, Inc., a California corporation (Defendant); Sun Mi Lee (Defendant); Does 1 through 50, inclusive (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/16/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Neman Brothers & Assoc., Inc., a California corporation (Plaintiff); As to: New Gen Enterprise, Inc., a California corporation (Defendant); Sun Mi Lee (Defendant); Does 1 through 50, inclusive (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/16/2019
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Neman Brothers & Assoc., Inc., a California corporation (Plaintiff); As to: New Gen Enterprise, Inc., a California corporation (Defendant); Sun Mi Lee (Defendant); Does 1 through 50, inclusive (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/16/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/16/2019
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC00573    Hearing Date: December 10, 2019    Dept: 94

ENTER JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO STIPULATION

(CCP § 664.6)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Neman Brothers & Associates, Inc.’s Motion to Enter Judgment Against Defendants is GRANTED in the amount of $16,502.65.

SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT: Action for breach of contract.

RELIEF REQUESTED: Plaintiff moves for an order entering judgment against Defendant pursuant to the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement.

ANALYSIS:

On January 16, 2019, Plaintiff Neman Brothers & Associates, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for breach of contract, fraud, and related claims against Defendants New Gen Enterprise, Inc. dba Breeze Ever dba Bloom Dba Blooms dba The Bloom, Sun Mi Lee Aka Sun M Lee (“Defendants”). On May 1, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for entry of judgment against Defendants. On July 18, 2019, the Court continued the hearing on this motion at the request of Plaintiff. On October 7, 2019, the Court, on its own motion, continued the hearing to October 10, 2019. To date, no opposition has been filed.

Plaintiff brings the instant motion seeking entry of judgment against Defendant pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, which provides:

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.) Strict compliance with the statutory requirements is necessary before a court can enforce a settlement agreement under this statute. (Sully-Miller Contracting Co. v. Gledson/Cashman Construction, Inc. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 30, 37.) Accordingly, “parties” under section 664.6 means the litigants themselves, not their attorneys. (Levy v. Superior Court (1995) 10 Cal.4th 578, 586 (holding “we conclude that the term ‘parties’ as used in section 664.6 means the litigants themselves, and does not include their attorneys of record.”).) Additionally, the settlement must include the signatures of the parties seeking to enforce the agreement, and against whom enforcement is sought. (J.B.B. Investment Partners, Ltd. v. Fair (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 974, 985.),

[R]equests for retention of jurisdiction must be made prior to a dismissal of the suit. Moreover, like the settlement agreement itself, the request must be made orally before the court or in a signed writing, and it must be made by the parties, not by their attorneys, spouses or other such agents. If, after a suit has been dismissed, a party brings a section 664.6 motion for a judgment on a settlement agreement but cannot present to the court a request for retention of jurisdiction that meets all of these requirements, then enforcement of the agreement must be left to a separate lawsuit.

(Wackeen v. Malis (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 429, 433.)

The notice of settlement filed by Plaintiff on November 1, 2017 included a request that the court retain jurisdiction pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 but as no dismissal was ever entered, the request to retain jurisdiction is moot.

Plaintiff has presented the court with a settlement agreement that satisfies the aforementioned statutory requirements. (Motion, Nourany Decl., Exh. 1.) The settlement agreement provides that Defendants would make monthly payments until the stipulated judgment was paid in full. (Id. at Exh. A, ¶1.) The settlement agreement also provides that upon Defendants’ default, judgment in the amount of the stipulated judgment would be entered in Plaintiff’s favor, less payments made by Defendants. (Ibid.) As of the filing of this motion, Defendants failed to make any payments as required under the settlement agreement. (Id. at ¶¶5-7.) Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to entry of judgment in the stipulated amount of $16,502.65.

Moving party to give notice.