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

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.