AAWESTWOOD LLC VS BARBARA HAINES ET AL

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC630802    Hearing Date: July 13, 2020    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 71

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff AAWestwood, LLC’s motion to enforce the settlement is granted.

Plaintiff’s requests for monetary sanctions and an amended judgment are denied.

Plaintiff AAWestwood, LLC (“Plaintiff”) moves for an order enforcing the Court’s orders issued in connection with its March 18, 2020 Order Authorizing Settlement and Releasing Notice of Lien, pursuant to which, the Court ordered Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Babkin, LLP (“WRS”), pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, to immediately release the $30,000 in Settlement Funds to the order of “AAWestwood, LLC”. (Notice of Motion, pg. 2; Motion, pg. 5; C.C.P. §664.6.) Plaintiff also requests monetary sanctions against Defendant Barbara Haines (“Defendant”) and her counsel WRS in the amount of $2,054.11, and for the issuance of an amended judgment against Defendant and WRS, jointly and severally, so the amount due can be collected by judgment enforcement procedures. (Motion, pgs. 2, 6, 8.)

On June 22, 2020, Plaintiff applied ex parte for the relief sought via this motion. On June 23, 2020, Defendant Barbara Haines (“Defendant”) filed an opposition to the ex parte application. On June 24, 2020, the Court scheduled the motion for hearing on July 13, 2020, deemed the ex parte application and opposition the moving and opposition papers, and set the reply deadline five Court days before the hearing. As such, this ruling’s references to the motion are to the ex parte application. The Court also ordered counsel to meet and confer regarding the status on the appeal. (6/24/20 Minute Order.)

On March 18, 2020, the Court ordered the Notice of Lien field by non-party lien creditor Liberal Arts 677 Benevolent Foundation, Inc. (“LA”) released on the condition that the $30,000 bond deposited by Plaintiff in Case No. BC504513 will be held by the Court until the appeal of that case is finalized; namely, until a remittitur is issued. The Court authorized the Settlement Agreement and ordered WRS to immediately release the $30,000 Settlement Funds to the order of Plaintiff. The Court ordered the action dismissed and retained jurisdiction pursuant to C.C.P. §664.6, to make orders to enforce any and all terms of settlement.

Plaintiff is entitled to an order enforcing its order that WRS release the $30,000 in Settlement Funds. The Court finds the deadline for non-party LA to appeal its March 20, 2020 Order passed on June 18, 2020. Defendant argues the payment at issue is not due since the Court’s order is not yet final given the time for LA to file an appeal has not expired for various reasons. First, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s service of the Notice of Entry of Judgment on LA by email, notwithstanding the fact LA did not consent to electronic service, makes the deadline for LA to file its notice of appeal September 14, 2020, or 180 days after the entry of the Order. (Opposition, pg. 6; Decl. of Boydston Exhs. A, E; C.C.P. §1010.6(a)(2)(A)(i); CRC Rules 2.251(a),(b),(c) & 8.104(a)(1)(C).) However, while Defendant cites the correct statute, she improperly relies on the language of C.C.P. §1010.6(a)(2)(A)(ii), which only applies to cases filed after January 1, 2019 and requires express consent. Here, electronic service is authorized if the party or person has agreed to accept electronic service in the action, and the Court finds that the conduct of LA suggests he agreed to accept electronic service. (C.C.P. §1010.6(a)(2)(A)(i).) Moreover, there is no dispute LA was actually electronically served with the Order and has had notice of it, given counsel’s communications with the parties with respect to his uncertain intentions of filing an appeal, unlike the authority cited by Defendant in which parties were unaware a judgment had been entered. (See Motion, Exh. G, Opposition, pg. 5.) Defendant argues that even if Plaintiff had properly served LA with Notice of Entry, the deadlines for appeals have been extended at least three times by 30 days in each instance, such that the deadline would be July 16, 2020. (Opposition, pgs. 6-7.) However, the Court finds that since the Second District Court of appeal only extended the deadline for filing an appeal once by 30 days, the deadline for LA to appeal expired on June 18, 2020.

In reply, Plaintiff notes that, as of July 6, 2020, it remains unknown if LA will appeal. Plaintiff argues that the Court’s order that WRS pay the $30,000 was not contingent on whether LA would appeal and that even if it were, the deadline for LA to appeal expired on June 18, 2020. (Reply, pgs. 2-3; CRC Rule 8.104(a)(1)(A)(B).) However, the Court need not address whether its order was contingent on LA’s potential appeal given the expiration of LA’s right to file an appeal on June 18, 2020.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement is granted and WRS is ordered to release the $30,000 in settlement funds to Plaintiff.

Plaintiff’s requests for monetary sanctions against WRS and Defendant and for the issuance of an amended judgment are denied. Plaintiff cites no authority pursuant to which it would be entitled to such relief.