ELIZABETH RODRIGUEZ VS. ZAYNA FLAMING GRILL, INC...ET AL.

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: YC071756    Hearing Date: July 14, 2020    Dept: M

Hearing Date: July 14, 2020 (continued from January 31, 2020)

Moving Parties: Plaintiff Elizabeth Rodriguez

Responding Party: None

Motion to Enforce Settlement

The court considered the moving papers and notice of stay of proceedings. The court had continued the hearing from January 31, 2020 to the herein date. Parties were directed to file a status report re bankruptcy at least five court days before hearing. The court notes that the parties have not filed a status report.

RULING

The motion is CONTINUED to 10-23-2020, at 8:30 a.m. Parties are directed to file a status report re bankruptcy at least five court days before hearing. If the bankruptcy proceedings are resolved before the hearing, the parties may contact clerk by phone to advance the hearing date.

BACKGROUND

On December 15, 2016, plaintiff Elizabeth Rodriguez filed a complaint against defendants Zayna Flaming Grill, Inc., Raid Younis, and Sana Younis.

On March 30, 2017, plaintiff filed a FAC for breach of contract, fraud, unfair business practices, and breach of fiduciary duties.

On October 6, 2017, plaintiff filed a SAC.

On April 30, 2019, plaintiff filed a notice of conditional settlement.

On June 28, 2019, the court dismissed the complaint without prejudice and retained jurisdiction to enforce any and all terms of settlement, including judgment, pursuant to CCP §664.6.

LEGAL AUTHORITY

CCP §664.6 states: “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.”

“A trial court, when ruling on a section 664.6 motion, acts as a trier of fact. Section 664.6’s ‘express authorization for trial courts to determine whether a settlement has occurred is an implicit authorization for the trial court to interpret the terms and conditions to settlement.’” Skulnick v. Roberts Express, Inc. (1992) 2 Cal. App. 4th 884, 889 (citation omitted).

CCP §187 states: “When jurisdiction is, by the Constitution or this Code, or by any other statute, conferred on a Court or judicial officer, all the means necessary to carry it into effect are also given; and in the exercise of this jurisdiction, if the course of proceeding be not specifically pointed out by this Code or the statute, any suitable process or mode of proceeding may be adopted which may appear most conformable to the spirit of this Code.”

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff requests that the court enter judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendants Zayna Flaming Grill, Inc., Raid Younis, and Sana Younis in the amount of $90,000, pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement between the parties.

The parties entered into a written settlement agreement, executed by defendants on May 20, 2019 and by plaintiff on June 5, 2019. The settlement agreement requires defendants to pay plaintiff $80,000, as follows: $10,000 by the “Effective Date,” [defined as May 20, 2019], $30,000 within 120 days of the Effective Date, and the remaining $40,000 paid in installments of $2,000 per month until paid in full. Plaintiff’s counsel states that he received $10,000 on June 12, 2019, but has not received any other payments.

Under the settlement agreement, in the event of defendants’ default, plaintiff “shall give the Defendants notice of default and a seven-day opportunity to cure such default.” On October 10, 2019, plaintiff’s counsel emailed defense counsel informing him that plaintiff had not received the second payment.

Further, under the settlement agreement, “[i]n the event that Defendants fail to cure default within seven days from the Notice of Default by Plaintiff, Plaintiff shall move to enforce this Agreement in accordance” with CCP §664.6. The settlement agreement also provides that in the event of payment default, the court shall enter judgment against defendants in the amount of $100,000, less any payments received by plaintiff.

The court noted at the hearing on January 31, 2020, that on December 10, 2019, defendant Zayna Flaming Grill filed a notice of stay of proceedings based upon a Ch. 13 bankruptcy case filed by defendant debtors Raid Yacoub Younis and Sana Younis.

The court continued the hearing from January 31, 2020 to the herein date. Parties were directed to file a status report re bankruptcy at least five court days before hearing.

The court notes that the parties have not filed a status report re bankruptcy.

The court thus CONTINUES the hearing.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of the hearing.

Case Number: YC071756    Hearing Date: January 31, 2020    Dept: SWB

Hearing Date: January 31, 2020

Moving Parties: Plaintiff Elizabeth Rodriguez

Responding Party: None

Motion to Enforce Settlement

The court considered the moving papers and notice of stay of proceedings.

RULING

The motion is CONTINUED to July 14, 2020, at 8:30 a.m. Parties are directed to file a status report re bankruptcy at least five court days before hearing. If the bankruptcy proceedings are resolved before the hearing, the parties may contact clerk by phone to advance the hearing date.

BACKGROUND

On December 15, 2016, plaintiff Elizabeth Rodriguez filed a complaint against defendants Zayna Flaming Grill, Inc., Raid Younis, and Sana Younis.

On March 30, 2017, plaintiff filed a FAC for breach of contract, fraud, unfair business practices, and breach of fiduciary duties.

On October 6, 2017, plaintiff filed a SAC.

On April 30, 2019, plaintiff filed a notice of conditional settlement.

On June 28, 2019, the court dismissed the complaint without prejudice and retained jurisdiction to enforce any and all terms of settlement, including judgment, pursuant to CCP §664.6.

LEGAL AUTHORITY

CCP §664.6 states: “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.”

“A trial court, when ruling on a section 664.6 motion, acts as a trier of fact. Section 664.6’s ‘express authorization for trial courts to determine whether a settlement has occurred is an implicit authorization for the trial court to interpret the terms and conditions to settlement.’” Skulnick v. Roberts Express, Inc. (1992) 2 Cal. App. 4th 884, 889 (citation omitted).

CCP §187 states: “When jurisdiction is, by the Constitution or this Code, or by any other statute, conferred on a Court or judicial officer, all the means necessary to carry it into effect are also given; and in the exercise of this jurisdiction, if the course of proceeding be not specifically pointed out by this Code or the statute, any suitable process or mode of proceeding may be adopted which may appear most conformable to the spirit of this Code.”

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff requests that the court enter judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendants Zayna Flaming Grill, Inc., Raid Younis, and Sana Younis in the amount of $90,000, pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement between the parties.

The parties entered into a written settlement agreement, executed by defendants on May 20, 2019 and by plaintiff on June 5, 2019. The settlement agreement requires defendants to pay plaintiff $80,000, as follows: $10,000 by the “Effective Date,” [defined as May 20, 2019], $30,000 within 120 days of the Effective Date, and the remaining $40,000 paid in installments of $2,000 per month until paid in full. Plaintiff’s counsel states that he received $10,000 on June 12, 2019, but has not received any other payments.

Under the settlement agreement, in the event of defendants’ default, plaintiff “shall give the Defendants notice of default and a seven-day opportunity to cure such default.” On October 10, 2019, plaintiff’s counsel emailed defense counsel informing him that plaintiff had not received the second payment.

Further, under the settlement agreement, “[i]n the event that Defendants fail to cure default within seven days from the Notice of Default by Plaintiff, Plaintiff shall move to enforce this Agreement in accordance” with CCP §664.6. The settlement agreement also provides that in the event of payment default, the court shall enter judgment against defendants in the amount of $100,000, less any payments received by plaintiff.

The court notes that on December 10, 2019, defendant Zayna Flaming Grill filed a notice of stay of proceedings based upon a Ch. 13 bankruptcy case filed by defendant debtors Raid Yacoub Younis and Sana Younis.

Accordingly, the motion is CONTINUED.