This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/16/2019 at 16:37:20 (UTC).

SHOTS AMERICA, LLC VS TIMOTHY JASON STUART MILLER

Case Summary

On 02/13/2018 a Other case was filed by SHOTS AMERICA, LLC against TIMOTHY JASON STUART MILLER in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******2578

  • Filing Date:

    02/13/2018

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Other

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

GEORGINA T. RIZK

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

SHOTS AMERICA LLC

Defendant

MILLER TIMOTHY JASON STUART AKA TIMOTHY JASON MILLER AKA TIMOTHY MILLER AKA JASON MILLER

 

Court Documents

Stipulation and Order (name extension) - Stipulation and Order Stipulation and Proposed Order for Court to Retain Jurisdiction

12/19/2018: Stipulation and Order (name extension) - Stipulation and Order Stipulation and Proposed Order for Court to Retain Jurisdiction

Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt

6/14/2018: Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt

Summons - on Complaint

2/13/2018: Summons - on Complaint

Civil Case Cover Sheet

2/13/2018: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Complaint

2/13/2018: Complaint

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

2/13/2018: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/05/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 08/13/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 03/05/2019

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 02/16/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 03/05/2019

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/19/2019
  • DocketOn the Complaint filed by Shots America, LLC on 02/13/2018, entered Order for Dismissal with prejudice as to the entire action

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/19/2018
  • DocketStipulation and Order Stipulation and Proposed Order for Court to Retain Jurisdiction; Signed and Filed by: Shots America, LLC (Plaintiff); As to: Timothy Jason Stuart Miller (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/14/2018
  • DocketNotice and Acknowledgment of Receipt; Filed by: Shots America, LLC (Plaintiff); As to: Timothy Jason Stuart Miller (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/13/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Shots America, LLC (Plaintiff); As to: Timothy Jason Stuart Miller (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/13/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Shots America, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/13/2018
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/13/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/13/2018
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Georgina T. Rizk in Department 77 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/13/2018
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 08/13/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 77

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/13/2018
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause - Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 02/16/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 77

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 18STLC02578    Hearing Date: November 12, 2019    Dept: 94

MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND ENTER JUDGMENT

(CCP § 664.6)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Shot’s America, LLC’s Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement and Enter Judgment is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND: This is an action for conversion of company funds using the company credit card. The parties entered into a settlement agreement and the case was dismissed on February 19, 2019, but the Court retained jurisdiction under CCP § 664.6 to enforce the settlement.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Shot’s America, LLC’s Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement and Enter Judgment is GRANTED.

I. Background

On July 30, 2018, Plaintiff Shots America, LLC (“Plaintiff”) executed a Settlement Agreement with Timothy Jason Stuart Miller (“Defendant”), to resolve this conversion of company funds action. (Motion, Exh. A (Settlement Agreement).) Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Defendant is required to pay $370 towards his first appearance fee, and to make monthly payments up to $25,000. (Id., Schnider Decl. ¶ 2.) Defendant is in default of his obligations under the settlement agreement and as a result, Plaintiff has brought the instant Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement and Enter Judgment (the “Motion”) under CCP § 664.6.

II. Legal Standard

Under CCP § 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.”

“[S]trict compliance with the requirements of section 664.6 is prerequisite to invoking the power of the court to impose a settlement agreement.” (Sully-Miller Contracting Co. v. Gledson/Cashman Construction, Inc. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 30, 37.)

III. Discussion

On August 6, 2018, the parties entered into a Stipulation re Jurisdiction wherby the parties agreed that the Court would be permitted to dismiss the action and retain jurisdiction under CCP § 664.6. (Schnider Decl., ¶ 4, Exh. C (Stipulation and Order).) The Court entered an Order on the Stipulation re Jurisdiction on February 16, 2019. (Ibid.) Additionally, Paragraph 4 of the Settlement Agreement provides for the Court’s retenion of jurisdiction under Section 664.6. Accordingly, the Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement Agreement. The Court finds the Settlement Agreement, signed by the parties under Section 664.6, to be valid and enforceable. Defendant has not opposed the instant Motion to demonstrate why judgment should not be entered against him.

Plaintiff states that Defendant never paid the first appearance fee payment of $370 and has not made the required monthly payments. (Id. at ¶¶ 5-6.) Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, any missed payments shall accrue interest in the amount of 10% per annum, which shall be added to the principal sum. (Settlement Agreement, ¶ 1.) The Settlement Agreement also provides that “[a] ‘Default’ shall mean and include any failure by Miller to perform under this Agreement or to timely pay the amounts due under the Note. In the event of a ‘Default,’ Shots may, at its option, proceed with filing the Stipulation re Judgment on an ex parte basis and obtain the Judgment against Miller.” (Id., ¶ 3.) According to the Stipulation and Order, if Defendant defaults on its obligations under the Settlement Agreement, then the parties agree that the Court may enter judgment against Defendant for (1) all accrued and unpaid amounts due under the Settlement Agreement as accelerated, and (2) Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in connection to enforcing the Settlement Agreement. (Stipulation and Order, ¶ 1.) Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to $30,159.86 in judgment ($24,245 principal amount + $370 first appearance fee + $2,231.86 10% interest on unpaid settlement amounts from December 11, 2018 to November 12, 2019, $3,253 in attorneys’ fees, and $60 in filing fees).

IV. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, the unopposed Motion is GRANTED. Judgment is to be entered in the sum of $30,159.86. Plaintiff is ordered to submit a proposed judgment consistent with this Order, if it has not done so already.

Prevailing party is ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCdept94@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.