This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 01/27/2021 at 14:52:51 (UTC).

EXECUTIVE CONSULTING INC VS VAL E KILMER

Case Summary

On 10/07/2013 EXECUTIVE CONSULTING INC filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against VAL E KILMER. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is ROLF M. TREU. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****3809

  • Filing Date:

    10/07/2013

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

ROLF M. TREU

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

EXECUTIVE CONSULTING INC

EXECUTIVE CONSULTING INC.

Defendants and Respondents

KILMER VAL E

V.

KILMER V. VAL E.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

BLEAU FOX APLC

BLEAU THOMAS PAUL

 

Court Documents

Order - ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ENFORCE THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

9/30/2020: Order - ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ENFORCE THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 11/05/2020

11/5/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 11/05/2020

Notice - NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

11/9/2020: Notice - NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT -

2/20/2014: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT -

ORDER FOR REMAND

2/24/2014: ORDER FOR REMAND

DEFENDANT VAL E., KILMER?S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF EXECUTIVE CONSULTING INC.?S COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

3/3/2014: DEFENDANT VAL E., KILMER?S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF EXECUTIVE CONSULTING INC.?S COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

Minute Order -

3/7/2014: Minute Order -

PLAINTIFF?S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ETC.

4/8/2014: PLAINTIFF?S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ETC.

Minute Order -

4/8/2014: Minute Order -

NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF EXECUTIVE CONSULTING INC.?S COMPLAINT

4/21/2014: NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF EXECUTIVE CONSULTING INC.?S COMPLAINT

Minute Order -

4/30/2014: Minute Order -

DEFENDANT VAL E. KILMER?S RESPONSE TO COURT?S ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE UNDER CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ? 410.30.

6/2/2014: DEFENDANT VAL E. KILMER?S RESPONSE TO COURT?S ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE UNDER CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ? 410.30.

PLAINTIFF?S REPLY TO DEFENDANT?S RESPONSE TO COURT?S ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE UNDER CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ? 410.30

6/4/2014: PLAINTIFF?S REPLY TO DEFENDANT?S RESPONSE TO COURT?S ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE UNDER CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ? 410.30

DEFENDANT VAL E. KILMER'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF EXECUTIVE COUNSULTING'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

6/6/2014: DEFENDANT VAL E. KILMER'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF EXECUTIVE COUNSULTING'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

NOTICE OF ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON DEFENDANT VAL E. KILM FR?S OEM IJRRFR TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, HEARING ON TI-IF COURT?S MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO CAL CODE CIV. PROC. ? 410.30, AND CAS

6/13/2014: NOTICE OF ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON DEFENDANT VAL E. KILM FR?S OEM IJRRFR TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, HEARING ON TI-IF COURT?S MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO CAL CODE CIV. PROC. ? 410.30, AND CAS

CIVIL DEPOSIT -

7/14/2014: CIVIL DEPOSIT -

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

7/16/2014: CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

10/8/2014: ORDER OF DISMISSAL

51 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/21/2021
  • DocketMemorandum of Costs After Judgment, Acknowledgment of Credit, and Declaration of Accrued Interest; Filed by EXECUTIVE CONSULTING, INC., (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/11/2021
  • DocketWrit of Execution ((Los Angeles)); Filed by EXECUTIVE CONSULTING, INC., (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/11/2021
  • DocketAbstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims; Filed by EXECUTIVE CONSULTING, INC., (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/05/2021
  • DocketNotice of Rejection - Post Judgment; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/12/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 58; Order to Show Cause Re: (Entry of Judgment) - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/09/2020
  • DocketNotice (of Entry of Judgment); Filed by EXECUTIVE CONSULTING, INC., (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/05/2020
  • Docketat 4:03 PM in Department 58; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/05/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/05/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order) of 11/05/2020); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/05/2020
  • DocketJudgment (Judgment); Filed by EXECUTIVE CONSULTING, INC., (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
23 More Docket Entries
  • 03/03/2014
  • DocketDemurrer (TO PLFF'S COMPLAINT; ); Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/24/2014
  • DocketOrder (REMANDING TO CALIF.SUPERIOR COURT; ); Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2014
  • DocketStatement-Case Management; Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/05/2014
  • DocketNotice (TO STATE CRT.OF REMOVAL OF ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT UNDER 28 USC 1441(b) (DIVERSITY); ); Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/04/2014
  • DocketAcknowledgement of Receipt; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/17/2014
  • Docketat 08:30 am in Department 58, Rolf M. Treu, Presiding; OSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv (*CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE*) - Matter is heard, matter continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/11/2013
  • DocketNotice-Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/11/2013
  • DocketOSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/07/2013
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by EXECUTIVE CONSULTING, INC., (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/07/2013
  • DocketComplaint

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC523809    Hearing Date: September 30, 2020    Dept: 58

Judge John P. Doyle

Department 58


Hearing Date: September 30, 2020

Case Name: Executive Consulting, Inc. v. Kilmer, V.

Case No.: BC523809

Matter: Motion to Enforce Settlement

Moving Party: Plaintiff Executive Consulting, Inc.

Responding Party: Unopposed


Tentative Ruling: The Motion to Enforce Settlement is granted.


Plaintiff Executive Consulting, Inc. seeks to enforce a settlement agreement (“SA”) entered into by the parties on September 15, 2014. (Martin Decl., Exhibit A.) The SA required that Defendant tender $50,000 in two installment payments. Defendant was required to pay an additional $10,000 if an installment payment was not received within thirty days from when it was due. Defendant has not made the second installment payment.

The Court is authorized to enter judgment pursuant to the stipulated settlement. (Code Civ. Proc. § 664.6.) In reviewing a motion to enforce a settlement, the Court determines “whether the parties entered into a valid and binding settlement.” (Hines v. Lukes (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1182.) “A settlement is enforceable under section 664.6 only if the parties agreed to all material settlement terms. [Citations.] The court ruling on the motion may consider the parties’ declarations and other evidence in deciding what terms the parties agreed to, and the court’s factual findings in this regard are reviewed under the substantial evidence standard. [Citations.] If the court determines that the parties entered into an enforceable settlement, it should grant the motion and enter a formal judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.” (Id. at pp. 1182-1183; see also Osumi v. Sutton (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1355, 1357 [“Strong public policy in favor of the settlement of civil cases gives the trial court, which approves the settlement, the power to enforce it”].)

Because a valid settlement exists between the parties and the Court has retained jurisdiction (Martin Decl., Exhibit A; October 8, 2014, Order of Dismissal), the Motion to Enforce Settlement is granted. (Code Civ. Proc. § 664.6.)