This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/22/2019 at 00:00:20 (UTC).

VAN ETTEN SIPPRELLE LLP, VS JOHN M. MILLER, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 02/21/2018 a Contract - Other Contract case was filed by VAN ETTEN SIPPRELLE LLP against JOHN M 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:

    *******3302

  • Filing Date:

    02/21/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

GEORGINA T. RIZK

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

VAN ETTEN SIPPRELLE LLP

Defendants

CITY LIGHTS FINANCIAL EXPRESS INC.

MILLER JOHN M.

 

Court Documents

Notice of Settlement - Notice of Settlement

8/21/2019: Notice of Settlement - Notice of Settlement

Minute Order - Minute Order (Non-Jury Trial)

8/21/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Non-Jury Trial)

Summons - on Complaint

2/26/2018: Summons - on Complaint

Civil Case Cover Sheet

2/21/2018: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Complaint

2/21/2018: Complaint

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

6/12/2018: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

6/12/2018: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

6/20/2018: Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

6/20/2018: Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

Answer

6/15/2018: Answer

Proof of Personal Service

5/11/2018: Proof of Personal Service

Proof of Personal Service

5/11/2018: Proof of Personal Service

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

2/21/2018: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

4 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/24/2021
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 94 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/21/2019
  • Hearingat 10:30 AM in Department 94 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/21/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) scheduled for 11/21/2019 at 10:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/21/2019
  • DocketMinute Order (Non-Jury Trial)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/21/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 08/21/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94 updated: Result Date to 08/21/2019; Result Type to Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/21/2019
  • DocketNotice of Settlement; Filed by: Van Etten Sipprelle LLP, (Plaintiff); Vacate Future Dates: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/20/2018
  • DocketNotice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/20/2018
  • DocketNotice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/15/2018
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by: John M. Miller (Defendant); City Lights Financial Express, INC., (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/12/2018
  • DocketRequest for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by: Van Etten Sipprelle LLP, (Plaintiff); As to: John M. Miller (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
2 More Docket Entries
  • 06/12/2018
  • Docket; Default not entered as to City Lights Financial Express, INC.,; On the Complaint filed by Van Etten Sipprelle LLP, on 02/21/2018

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/11/2018
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by: Van Etten Sipprelle LLP, (Plaintiff); As to: John M. Miller (Defendant); Service Date: 05/07/2018; Service Cost: 0.00; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/11/2018
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by: Van Etten Sipprelle LLP, (Plaintiff); As to: John M. Miller (Defendant); Service Date: 05/07/2018; Service Cost: 0.00; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2018
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Filed by:

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/24/2018
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Georgina T. Rizk in Department 77 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/24/2018
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 08/21/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 77

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/24/2018
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause - Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 02/24/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 77

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/21/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Van Etten Sipprelle LLP, (Plaintiff); As to: John M. Miller (Defendant); City Lights Financial Express, INC., (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/21/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Van Etten Sipprelle LLP, (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/21/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 18STLC03302    Hearing Date: March 02, 2020    Dept: 26

Van Etten Sipprelle, LLP v. Miller, et al.

ENTER JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO STIPULATION

(CCP § 664.6)

TENTATIVE RULING:

PLAINTIFF VAN ETTEN SIPPRELLE, LLP’S MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IS GRANTED. JUDGMENT TO BE ENTERED AGAINST DEFENDANTS JOHN M. MILLER AND CITY LIGHTS FINANCIAL EXPRESS, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,909.00 PRINCIPAL, $61.65 COSTS, AND $990.00 REASONABLE ATTORNEY’S FEES.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Van Etten Sipprelle, LLP (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for breach of retainer agreement against Defendants John M. Miller and City Lights Financial Express, Inc. (“Defendants”) on February 21, 2018. On August 21, 2019, Plaintiff filed a notice of conditional settlement.

Plaintiff now moves to enforce the settlement and enter judgment against Defendants. To date, no opposition has been filed.

Legal Standard

Under 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.) 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.)

Discussion

Plaintiff has demonstrated compliance with the statutory requirements set forth above. (Motion, Sipprelle Decl., ¶5 and Exh. B.) The settlement provides that Defendants will pay the sum of $5,909.00 in two separate installments to be completed within 30 days of execution on August 20, 2019. (Id. at Exh. B, ¶1.) The settlement agreement also provides that upon Defendants’ default, Plaintiff may move for entry of judgment in the stipulated amount, plus attorneys’ fees and costs to enforce the settlement, but less payments made. (Id. at Exh. B, ¶¶4, 12.) Payment of $1,000.00 was made towards the stipulated judgment, after which Defendants defaulted. (Id. at ¶6.) Plaintiff provided Defendant with written notice of the default and an opportunity to cure, but the default has not been remedied. (Ibid.)

In light of Defendants’ violation of the stipulated settlement terms, Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Settlement is GRANTED. Plaintiff is entitled to entry of judgment in the amount of $4,909.00 principal, $61.65 costs, and $990.00 reasonable attorney’s fees based on two hours of attorney time. (Id. at ¶¶7-14.)

Moving party to give notice.

Parties may submit via e mail until Monday at 10 a.m.