On 08/07/2015 BOBBY PHARES filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against CARLA ELIZABETH MITCHELL. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Norwalk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are MARGARET MILLER BERNAL and BRIAN F. GASDIA. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.
Disposed - Judgment Entered
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Los Angeles, California
MARGARET MILLER BERNAL
BRIAN F. GASDIA
MITCHELL CARLA ELIZABETH
MAPLE LEAF CAPITAL COMPANY
MITCHELL CARLA ELIZABETH
BUNNETT JOHN A. ATTORNEY AT LAW
BUNNETT JOHN ALLEN
SONGSTAD & RANDALL LLP
BRADFORD JEROME LAW OFFICE OF
DEAL CHRISTOPHER EDWARD ESQ.
4/30/2021: Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER STIPULATION AND ORDER TERMINATING RECEIVERSHIP
1/7/2021: Order - COURT ORDER/RULING (HEARING 1-7-21)
5/10/2019: Other - - OTHER - UNDERTAKING
5/14/2019: Substitution of Attorney
4/7/2016: Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2016-04-07 00:00:00
9/13/2016: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Stipulation
1/25/2017: Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2017-01-25 00:00:00
7/7/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Ex-Parte Application
9/22/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Ex-Parte Application
9/28/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Order
3/19/2018: Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2018-03-19 00:00:00
7/16/2018: Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2018-07-16 00:00:00
10/16/2018: Stipulation and Order - Stipulation and Order to continue trial;
3/27/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME & TRO
4/5/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE AND TRIAL
DocketNotice of Settlement; Filed by Carla Elizabeth Mitchell (Legacy Party)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Carla Elizabeth Mitchell (Legacy Party)Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 2:30 PM in Department C; Hearing on Motion to Enforce Settlement - Held - Motion DeniedRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Enforce Settlement)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketCourt Order/Ruling (Hearing 1-7-21); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketOpposition (to Motion to Enforce Judgment); Filed by BOBBY PHARES (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketDeclaration (of Alexis Galindo in Support of Defendant's Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement); Filed by Carla Elizabeth Mitchell (Legacy Party)Read MoreRead Less
DocketMotion to Enforce Settlement; Filed by Carla Elizabeth Mitchell (Legacy Party)Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department F; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) - Not Held - Advanced and VacatedRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 11:00 AM in Department C; Ruling on Submitted MatterRead MoreRead Less
DocketAnswer; Filed by Maple Leaf Capital Company (Legacy Party)Read MoreRead Less
DocketAnswer; Filed by Carla Elizabeth Mitchell (Legacy Party)Read MoreRead Less
DocketRtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by BOBBY PHARES (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketRtn of Service of Summons & ComplRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Lis Pendens; Filed by BOBBY PHARES (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice; Filed by BOBBY PHARES (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketSummons; Filed by BOBBY PHARES (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by BOBBY PHARES (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by BOBBY PHARES (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Case Number: VC064947 Hearing Date: January 07, 2021 Dept: C
PHARES v. MITCHELL
CASE NO.: VC064947
Defendant CARLA MITCHELL’s Motion to Enforce Settlement is DENIED. CCP § 664.6.
Opposing Party to give Notice.
No Reply filed as of January 4, 2021. Due by December 30, 2020. (CCP §1005(b).)
Plaintiff BOBBY PHARES and Defendant CARLA ELIZABETH MITCHELL settled this matter on May 30, 2019. Defendant has attached the written settlement agreement between the parties to the Motion. (See Galindo Decl., Ex. A.)
CCP §664.6 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.” Although a judge hearing a section 664.6 motion may receive evidence, determine disputed facts, and enter the terms of a settlement agreement as a judgment, nothing in section 664.6 authorizes a judge to create the material terms of a settlement, as opposed to deciding what terms the parties themselves have previously agreed upon. (Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793,810.) A settlement agreement is interpreted according to the same principles as any other written agreement (Leeman v. Adams Extract & Spice, LLC (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 1367, 1374.) It must be interpreted to give effect to the mutual intent of the parties as it existed at the time, insofar as that intent can be ascertained and is lawful. (Id.)
As an initial matter, the Court finds that the parties have properly requested that the Court retain jurisdiction to enforce their settlement agreement. (See Galindo Decl., Ex. A.)
The settlement agreement states, in pertinent part:
(e) The property located at 17238 Greenland, Bellflower, California 90706 shall be listed for sale by PHARES upon entry of the Judgement Quieting Title.
(f) MITCHELL will be permitted to occupy the property for a period of six (6) months from May 20, 2019 rent free, or upon the close of escrow of the sale of said property, whichever happens sooner. At such time, MITCHELL shall vacate the property and remove all property and possessions, excepting such property affixed to the premises as of the date of this agreement. Any property remaining on the premises after MITCHELL vacates the Gardenland property shall be deemed abandoned and PHARES may dispose of any property or possessions left on the premisses [sic] in an y manner in which PHARES selects.
(g) MITCHELL Shall be paid the sum of $60,000.00 from the net proceeds of escrow upon the closing of escrow on the Gardenland Property. In making this payment, upon the close of escrow of the Gardenland property, escrow shall disburse the sum of $60,000.00 payable to Carla Mitchell and Curd, Galindo & Smith, LLP.
(h) MITCHELL shall cooperate with the showing and sale of the Gardenland property as to not impede or delay the sale.
(i) MITCHELL shall continue to cooperate with the receiver concerning the property located at 14534 Bellflower Blvd., Bellflower, California 90706 and shall conform to the Court’s order imposed by the Receivership.
Defendant seeks an Order from this Court requiring Plaintiff to either pay Defendant $60,000.00 or list and sell the Gardenland Property and at the close of escrow pay Defendant $60,000.00.
The Motion is DENIED. As indicated above, in a Motion under Section 664.6, the Court must be primarily guided by the terms of the operative settlement agreement. Here, the parties expressly agreed that the $60,000.00 at issue would be paid to Defendant MITCHELL from the net proceeds of escrow upon the closing of escrow on the Gardenland Property. Throughout the agreement, there is no time limit or timeline articulated that indicates when the sale of the Gardenland Property must occur. Moreover, based on the evidence provided by Plaintiff in Opposition, it appears that the Gardenland Property was listed for sale on MLS sometime shortly after July 3, 2019. (See Palacios Decl., 1:19-23.) The provisions of the settlement agreement clearly state that the $60,000.00 would be paid to Defendant when escrow closes—whenever that is— and that event has not yet occurred.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases