Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 02/11/2021 at 06:02:31 (UTC).

JESUS NARANO ET AL VS ALBERT LON CHANEY III ET AL

Case Summary

On 03/20/2014 JESUS NARANO filed a Contract - Professional Negligence lawsuit against ALBERT LON CHANEY III. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are ROBERT L. HESS and ROBERT H. O'BRIEN. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****0028

  • Filing Date:

    03/20/2014

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Professional Negligence

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

ROBERT L. HESS

ROBERT H. O'BRIEN

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

NARANJO JESUS

NARANJO MARIA BLANCA

Defendants and Respondents

CHANEY ALBERT LON III

CHANEY KAY S.

DOES 1 TO 100

CARLOS SANCHEZ

SANCHEZ CARLOS

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

LAW OFFICES OF MARIO D. VEGA A.P.C.

ANORGA OMAR

Defendant Attorney

FLORES ALDO A ESQ.

Other Attorneys

FLORES ALDO A. ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Substitution of Attorney

6/4/2019: Substitution of Attorney

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO EX-PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO COMPEL APPOINTMENT OF APPRAISER; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF ANTON R.E. RICHARDSON; DECLARATION OF ALBERT LON CHAN

2/3/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO EX-PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO COMPEL APPOINTMENT OF APPRAISER; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF ANTON R.E. RICHARDSON; DECLARATION OF ALBERT LON CHAN

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER)

3/10/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER)

Declaration - DECLARATION OF JESUS NARANJO

9/23/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION OF JESUS NARANJO

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF ALBERT LON CHANEY IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS CCP 664.6 MOTION FOR AN ORDER THAT THE CHANEYS APPOINT AN APPRAISER

10/7/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF ALBERT LON CHANEY IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS CCP 664.6 MOTION FOR AN ORDER THAT THE CHANEYS APPOINT AN APPRAISER

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF ALBERT LON CHANEY III IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO VACATE AND SET ASIDE JUDGMENT

1/19/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF ALBERT LON CHANEY III IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO VACATE AND SET ASIDE JUDGMENT

NOTICE OF PROOF OF SERVICE

4/3/2014: NOTICE OF PROOF OF SERVICE

CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR: BREACH OF CONTRACT; ANTICIPATORY BREACH OF CONTRACT; BREACH OF THE COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING; 4. SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE; 5. TORTIOUS INDUCEMENT OF BREACH OF CONTRACT;

5/14/2014: CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR: BREACH OF CONTRACT; ANTICIPATORY BREACH OF CONTRACT; BREACH OF THE COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING; 4. SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE; 5. TORTIOUS INDUCEMENT OF BREACH OF CONTRACT;

NOTICE OF HEARING OF DEMURRER; PLAINTIFFS JESUS NARANJO?S, MARIA BLANCA?S, AND CO-TRUSTEE JESUS NARANJO?S AND CO-TRUSTEE MARIA NARANJO?S DEMURRER TO CROSS- COMPLAINT OF ALBERT LON CHANEY III AND KAY S

7/9/2014: NOTICE OF HEARING OF DEMURRER; PLAINTIFFS JESUS NARANJO?S, MARIA BLANCA?S, AND CO-TRUSTEE JESUS NARANJO?S AND CO-TRUSTEE MARIA NARANJO?S DEMURRER TO CROSS- COMPLAINT OF ALBERT LON CHANEY III AND KAY S

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT -

1/26/2015: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT -

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT -

1/28/2015: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT -

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT -

1/29/2015: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT -

Minute Order -

2/2/2015: Minute Order -

SEPARATE STATEMENT OF SPECIAL 1NTERROGATORIES AND RESPONSES IN DISPUTE

4/6/2015: SEPARATE STATEMENT OF SPECIAL 1NTERROGATORIES AND RESPONSES IN DISPUTE

PLAINTIFF JESUS NARANJO'S OBJECTION RE UNIDENTIFIED SEPARATE STATEMENT OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND RESPONSES IN DISPUTE WITH "EVIDENCE" AS FINAL WORD ON PAGE 2, SERVED CONCURRENTLY WITH MOTION TO C

4/24/2015: PLAINTIFF JESUS NARANJO'S OBJECTION RE UNIDENTIFIED SEPARATE STATEMENT OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND RESPONSES IN DISPUTE WITH "EVIDENCE" AS FINAL WORD ON PAGE 2, SERVED CONCURRENTLY WITH MOTION TO C

PLAINTIFF MARIA BLANCA NARANJO'S OBJECTION RE UNIDENTIFIED SEPARATE STATEMENT OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND RESPONSES IN DISPUTE WITH "NOT" AS FINAL WORD ON PAGE 2, SERVED CONCURRENTLY WITH MOTION TO

4/24/2015: PLAINTIFF MARIA BLANCA NARANJO'S OBJECTION RE UNIDENTIFIED SEPARATE STATEMENT OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND RESPONSES IN DISPUTE WITH "NOT" AS FINAL WORD ON PAGE 2, SERVED CONCURRENTLY WITH MOTION TO

PLAINTIFF MARIA BLANCA NARANJO'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL REQUEST FOR RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE; DECLARATIONS OF ROBERT S. PARADA AND CHRISTOPHER W.P. OVERTON IN SUPPORT THER

4/24/2015: PLAINTIFF MARIA BLANCA NARANJO'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL REQUEST FOR RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE; DECLARATIONS OF ROBERT S. PARADA AND CHRISTOPHER W.P. OVERTON IN SUPPORT THER

Minute Order -

5/28/2015: Minute Order -

99 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/10/2021
  • DocketRULING RE: Motion to Set Aside and Vacate Judgment; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/10/2021
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Judgment (CCP 473)) of 02/10/2021, RULING RE: Motion to Set Aside and Vacate Judgment); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/10/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Judgment (CCP 473))); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/10/2021
  • DocketOrder Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore; Filed by Albert Lon III Chaney (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/04/2021
  • DocketReply (Declaration of Albert Lon Chaney III to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion to Set Aside and Vacate Judgment and Enter Another and Different Interlocutory Judgment); Filed by Albert Lon III Chaney (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/04/2021
  • DocketReply (to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion to Set Aside and Vacate Judgment and Enter Another and Different Interlocutory Judgment); Filed by Albert Lon III Chaney (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/25/2021
  • DocketOpposition (PLAINTIFFS? OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS? MOTION TO SET ASIDE AND VACATE JUDGMENT; DECLARATION OF OMAR S. ANORGA IN OPPOSITION THEREOF); Filed by Jesus Naranjo (Plaintiff); Maria Blanca Naranjo (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/20/2021
  • DocketMotion to Set Aside/Vacate Judgment; Filed by Albert Lon III Chaney (Defendant); Kay S. Chaney (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/19/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 24; Hearing on Motion for Leave (Motion to Enforce Judgment) - Held - Taken under Submission

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/19/2021
  • DocketDeclaration (Declaration of Albert Lon Chaney III in Support of Motion to Vacate and Set Aside Judgment); Filed by Albert Lon III Chaney (Defendant); Kay S. Chaney (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
157 More Docket Entries
  • 05/14/2014
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Albert Lon III Chaney (Defendant); Kay S. Chaney (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2014
  • DocketCross-Complaint; Filed by Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2014
  • DocketANSWER TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/03/2014
  • DocketNOTICE OF PROOF OF SERVICE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/03/2014
  • DocketNOTICE OF PROOF OF SERVICE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/20/2014
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Jesus Naranjo (Plaintiff); Maria Blanca Naranjo (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/20/2014
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/20/2014
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR: 1. PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/07/2012
  • Docketat 08:33 AM in Department 24; Unknown Event Type

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/07/2012
  • DocketMinute order entered: 2012-05-07 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC540028    Hearing Date: January 19, 2021    Dept: 24

On March 20, 2014, Plaintiffs Jesus Naranjo and Blanca Naranjo (the Naranjos) filed the instant breach of contract/malpractice suit the Defendants Albert Lon Chaney III and Kay Chaney (the Chaneys) for, among other things, rescission of an Option Agreement, elder abuse and professional negligence. The operative complaint alleges that on December 6, 2011, plaintiffs entered into an agreement entitled Option Agreement For The Purchase of Real Property (“Option Agreement”) with Defendants. Defendants agreed to manage and operate Plaintiffs’ real property in exchange for the future right to purchase the Property if the Defendants exercised an option to do so. Plaintiffs contended that Defendants tricked them into agreeing to the unfavorable Option Agreement.

Defendants filed a cross complaint against the Plaintiffs alleging, among other things, that Plaintiffs had breached the Option Agreement.

On May 24, 2016, the parties entered into a stipulated settlement in open court on the record.

On August 24, 2020, Defendants filed a motion to enforce settlement pursuant to CCP section 664.6. On September 23, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce the settlement pursuant to CCP section 664.6. At the hearing on the motion of October 19, 2020, the Court addressed the issues presented. Given that both parties requested that judgment be entered, the Court allowed both parties to submit their proposed judgments which reflect the stipulated settlement in accordance with CCP section 665.6. On October 28, 2002, Defendant filed a proposed judgment. On that same date, Plaintiff lodged a proposed judgment. The Court signed Plaintiffs’ proposed Judgment, which was entered on November 9, 2020. On November 10, 2020, the Court heard oral arguments regarding the proposed judgments.

On December 15, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a second 664.6 motion to enforce the judgment. On January 6, 2021, Defendant filed an opposition.

Discussion

Procedural Issue

CCP section 664.6 enables the Court to do two things: 1) the Court may “enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the [qualifying] settlement agreement” and 2) “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.” (Emphasis Added.) Plaintiffs insist that the second sentence allows this Court to “enforce” the judgment pursuant to this code. The Court disagrees. The “retention of jurisdiction” enables the Court to retain jurisdiction if the case is voluntarily dismissed, which many settlement agreements require. (See Hagan Engineering, Inc. v. Mills (2003) 115 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1007-1010 [without proper retention of jurisdiction, a plaintiff’s dismissal would remove jurisdiction].) “We construe the second sentence of section 664.6 to mean, and we so hold, that even though a settlement may call for a case to be dismissed, or the plaintiff may dismiss the suit of its own accord, the court may nevertheless retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement, until such time as all of its terms have been performed by the parties, if the parties have requested this specific retention of jurisdiction.” (Wackeen v. Malis (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 429, 439.) This “retention” language does not give the Court procedural carte blanche to fashion any order regarding the settlement. This is simply the improper context to bring this request.

Notice Period

Defendant argues that there is a sixty-day notice to cure provision in the Option Agreement. The judgment provides that there will be a sixty-day notice period to cure any alleged breach of the option agreement, and fifteen-day notice period to cure any alleged violation of the judgment. (Jud., ¶ 8.) Plaintiffs gave a notice to cure on November 12, 2020 regarding the appointment of an appraiser. (Anorga Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. B.) Counsel states that Defendants have failed to nominate a qualified appraiser to determine the purchase price of the Real Property as of December 15, 2020. (Id., ¶ 7.) This violation refers to both the terms of the judgment (an “additional” term from ¶ 5d), and the option agreement (§ 6). Both periods therefore facially apply. Plaintiff would have to comply with both periods in this instance, effectively the larger period. Plaintiff therefore did not give sufficient notice to cure.

For a subsequent motion, this issue is now moot since greater than 60 days’ notice have been given now.

Terms of the Agreement

The terms are that the parties were to adhere to the option agreement as reflected by the attached exhibit, with additional terms set in ¶ 5 of the judgment. The additional terms include ¶ 5(d), which sets forth the process to determine the purchase price. If not mutually agreed upon, “the purchase price shall be determined by the appraisal process” described by the judgment. (See Judgment, ¶ 5(d); Ex. A § 6.) Two qualified appraisers will be nominated by each party in a timely manner. The two appraisers will confer to determine a price. If no price is reached within 20 days of the second nomination, a third appraiser will be nominated by first two appraisers. Then, the majority of the three will determine the purchase price in a timely manner. Defendant presents no evidence that they nominated an appraiser pursuant to these terms.

Defendant makes a few arguments about Plaintiff’s failure to give an appraisal with the effective date of March 4, 2014. This is a red herring issue for this motion. The terms of the judgment and settlement control, and not some arbitrary interpretation of the “creation date” of an agreement. Yes, an agreement existed on that date. However, the terms provide for the process to determine the price. Instead, the price will be mutually agreed upon, or agreed via the appraiser process. The terms of the option agreement and judgment do not fix the price to a certain date, beyond what the appraisers might consider.

If Defendant wishes to challenge the judgment, then he should make a noticed motion. Any delay may weigh against him.

As previously indicated in the Court’s ruling to the first set of motions, CCP section 664.6 does not enable this Court to “enforce” the judgment, i.e., require Defendant to comply with the terms of the Judgment. The Judgment is already entered. The Court meant it. Both parties must already comply with its terms. Plaintiff must make a procedurally valid motion to enforce the judgment with proper notice of the statutory authority.

 

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: BC540028    Hearing Date: October 19, 2020    Dept: 24

The parties respective CCP § 664.6 motions are CONTINUED to allow for the submission of a proposed judgment.

On March 20, 2014, Plaintiffs Jesus Naranjo and Blanca Naranjo (the Naranjos) filed the instant breach of contract/malpractice suit the Defendants Albert Lon Chaney III and Kay Chaney (the Chaneys) for, among other things, rescission of an Option Agreement, elder abuse and professional negligence. The operative complaint alleges that on December 6, 2011, plaintiffs entered into an agreement entitled Option Agreement For The Purchase of Real Property (“Option Agreement”) with Defendants. Defendants agreed to manage and operate Plaintiffs’ real property in exchange for the future right to purchase the Property if the Defendants exercised an option to do so. Plaintiffs contended that Defendants tricked them into agreeing to the unfavorable Option Agreement.

Defendants filed a cross complaint against the Plaintiffs alleging, among other things, that Plaintiffs had breached the Option Agreement.

On May 24, 2016, the parties entered into a stipulated settlement in open court on the record.

On August 24, 2020, Defendants filed the instant motion to enforce judgment pursuant to CCP section 664.6. On October 5, 2020, Plaintiff filed an opposition.

Plaintiff also moved to enter judgment pursuant to the settlement agreement, set to be heard on October 21, 2020.

Legal Standard

Pursuant to CCP 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.”

“Because of its summary nature, strict compliance with the requirements of section 664.6 is prerequisite to invoking the power of the court to impose a settlement agreement.” (Sully-Miller Contracting Co. v. Gledson/Cashman Construction, Inc. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 30, 37;Critzer v. Enos (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1262.) In ruling on a motion under § 664.6, the trial judge may receive oral testimony, or may determine the motion upon declarations alone. (Corkland v. Boscoe (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 989, 994.) Where the agreement was reached at a court hearing, the court can resolve the dispute on the basis of its own notes or recollection of what was agreed to (as well as any transcripts of the proceedings). (Richardson v. Richardson (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 91, 97.)

Discussion

First, the Court must observe that the parties misapprehend that the settlement on the record somehow constitutes a judgment. Both parties argue that there is a judgment, but neither cite to the record where such an order might be found. On the Court’s review, the transcript provided does not refer to any judgment or order, beyond the settlement. The record does not state that any judgment would, somehow, automatically execute from the record. The record indicates that “The transcript of these proceedings will be the official record of what the deal is” meaning the settlement. (Chaney Decl., Ex. C, at 34:4-5.) The Court then goes on to contemplate anticipated dismissals by Plaintiffs pursuant to the settlement, and that the Court would retain jurisdiction (i.e. after dismissal) to enforce the settlement per CCP section 664.6.

No other court record following the May 24, 2016 record suggests a judgment was entered. The May 24, 2016 Minute Order only suggests that the “matter is settled” and that the matter is continued for “completion of settlement” to August 3, 2016. That date’s minute order suggests that the Naranjos and their attorneys falling out, which was followed by Naranjo’s counsel’s motion to be relieved. That motion was granted on September 14, 2016. The notice of that order does not indicate any judgment. On February 28, 2017, the Chaneys filed a motion to enforce settlement, which apparently was not heard. There was no other significant activity on this case until the ex parte proceeding in January 2020 regarding the appraiser issue. Thus, the Court does not find that a judgment was properly rendered in this case. The good news: CCP section 664.6 is designed to enter judgments based on settlements entered orally before the court. Interestingly, both parties oppose each other’s motions, despite both motions ostensibly asking for the same relief through CCP section 664.6. 

The Court finds that CCP section 664.6 applies to the instant settlement agreement. The parties do not dispute that they were both present and orally consented to the terms of the agreement as set forth in the transcript. Those meet the requirements for entry of judgment. Thus, the Court, upon both parties’ motions, will enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement. Neither party provides a proposed judgment.

Accordingly, the Court orders the parties to meet and confer on the terms of said judgment and file a joint proposed judgment reflecting the terms of the agreement as stated in the transcript. The Court continues the instant motion to November 10, 2020 at 8:30 a.m. to allow for the parties to do so. Plaintiffs’ 664 motion is continued to that date as well. If the parties cannot agree on the terms, either party may submit their proposed judgment at least 9 court days prior to the continued hearing date. Any objections to a proposed judgment may be filed at least 5 court days prior to the continued hearing date. There is a five-page limit to any briefing regarding the objections. Any order for compliance sought to enforce the eventual judgment will need be done through noticed post-judgment enforcement motions. The Court does not find a prevailing party for the time being.

Sanctions for Disclosure

Plaintiff argues that Chaney disclosed the social security numbers of both Plaintiffs within his declaration in support of the Motion. (See Chaney Decl., Exs. F, G.) This is in clear violation of CRC Rule 1.201(a)(1), (b). Plaintiff requests sanctions but does not specify what would be reasonable in these circumstances. Thus, the Court will discuss the issue with counsel at the hearing. Further, the Court will remove the declaration from the record and order Chaney to resubmit the declaration with the information deleted.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer FLORES ALDO A.