Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/26/2019 at 15:07:31 (UTC).

LEILA M LIM VS MAWI C LASET ET AL

Case Summary

On 12/21/2016 LEILA M LIM filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against MAWI C LASET. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are RUPERT A. BYRDSONG, HOLLY E. KENDIG and ELAINE LU. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4499

  • Filing Date:

    12/21/2016

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Real Property

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

RUPERT A. BYRDSONG

HOLLY E. KENDIG

ELAINE LU

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

LIM LEILA M.

Defendants and Respondents

LASET ROBERTO R.

LASET MAWI C.

LASET ROBERTO R. AND MAWI C. TRUSTEES

DOES 1 THROUGH 50

Cross Defendant

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING LLC

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

FABRIZI LARRY ESQ.

KNEAFSEY SEAN MARCO

DREIBHOLZ KURT ALAN

Defendant Attorneys

LAW OFFICE OF DAN HOGUE

MADNICK HARRIS MARK

Cross Defendant Attorneys

MCCULLAH TANYA C.

PAINO BRIAN A. ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Unknown

2/5/2018: Unknown

Unknown

2/6/2018: Unknown

Unknown

2/21/2018: Unknown

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL AND DEPOSIT OF JURY FEES

2/23/2018: DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL AND DEPOSIT OF JURY FEES

Stipulation

10/19/2018: Stipulation

Substitution of Attorney

11/20/2018: Substitution of Attorney

Exhibit List

2/1/2019: Exhibit List

Notice

4/10/2019: Notice

Reply

4/12/2019: Reply

Motion in Limine

4/29/2019: Motion in Limine

Minute Order

5/6/2019: Minute Order

Minute Order

5/6/2019: Minute Order

NOTICE OF RECORDED PENDING ACTION

12/29/2016: NOTICE OF RECORDED PENDING ACTION

CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR QUIET TITLE; FRAUD; AND BREACH OF CONTRACT

1/31/2017: CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR QUIET TITLE; FRAUD; AND BREACH OF CONTRACT

Unknown

5/16/2017: Unknown

CROSS-COMPLAINANTS' OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE PORTION OF FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLATNT

9/13/2017: CROSS-COMPLAINANTS' OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE PORTION OF FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLATNT

Unknown

11/17/2017: Unknown

Minute Order

11/28/2017: Minute Order

67 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/21/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 26, Elaine Lu, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 26, Elaine Lu, Presiding; Jury Trial (3 TO 5 DAY) - Not Held - Clerical Error

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/09/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 26, Elaine Lu, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Clerical Error

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/06/2019
  • at 10:30 AM in Department 28, Rupert A. Byrdsong, Presiding; Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/06/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 26, Elaine Lu, Presiding; Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC) - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/06/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC))); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/06/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC))); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/29/2019
  • Motion in Limine (to Exclude All Evidence and References to an Oral Agreement); Filed by Mawi C. Laset (Defendant); Roberto R. Laset (Defendant); Laset, Roberto R. and Mawi C., trustees (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2019
  • Notice ( of Entry of Order); Filed by Mawi C. Laset (Defendant); Roberto R. Laset (Defendant); Laset, Roberto R. and Mawi C., trustees (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 26, Elaine Lu, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
124 More Docket Entries
  • 01/20/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/20/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Leila M. Lim (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/20/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/29/2016
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/29/2016
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND OSC RE: PROOF OF SERVICE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/29/2016
  • Notice of Lis Pendens; Filed by Leila M. Lim (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/29/2016
  • NOTICE OF RECORDED PENDING ACTION

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/21/2016
  • Complaint; Filed by Leila M. Lim (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/21/2016
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/21/2016
  • COMPLAINT FOR: (1) BREACH OF CONTRACT; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC644499    Hearing Date: November 12, 2020    Dept: 26

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 26

leila m. lim,

Plaintiff,

v.

mawi c. laset, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC644499

Hearing Date: November 12, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

Defendants’ motion to enforce settlement

Background

On December 21, 2016, plaintiff Leila M. Lim (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action against defendants Mawi C. Laset (“Ms. Laset”), Roberto R. Laset (“Mr. Laset”), Mr. and Ms. Laset as Trustees of the Laset Family Trust dated 3/23/15 (“Laset Family Trust”) (collectively “Defendants”) and Does 1 to 50 alleging causes of action for (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of contract – promissory estoppel, (3) specific performance, (4) fraud and (5) declaratory relief.[1]

During a mandatory settlement conference on May 6, 2019, the parties entered into a settlement, the terms of which were put forth on the record in open court and memorialized in a minute order. (Laset Decl. Ex. A.) Pursuant to the parties’ settlement, the court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6. The settlement was subject to execution of a long-form settlement agreement. (Laset Decl. Ex. A.) Pursuant to the settlement reflected in the May 6, 2019 minute order, the parties entered into a Written Settlement Agreement and Mutual General release dated May 31, 2019. On October 16, 2019, counsel for both parties represented that the parties had executed a written settlement agreement. The court ordered the dismissal of the complaint with prejudice, and the court retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of settlement, including judgment, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 664.6.

On September 9, 2020, Defendants filed this instant motion for entry of judgment pursuant to the settlement agreement. On October 2, 2020, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On October 7, 2020, Defendants filed a reply.

Court’s Disclosure

At the outset of the October 9, 2020 hearing, the Court disclosed the following information:

Judge Elaine Lu recently purchased a vacant duplex. After the close of escrow in August 2020, Judge Lu learned in September 2020 (1) that Sellers’ MLS listing contained misrepresentations regarding rent and (2) that Sellers had evicted the former tenant for one of the units as a result of which the rent for that unit is capped under rent control laws; the rent for that unit is capped at an amount lower than what Sellers had stated as rent in the MLS listing. Sellers never disclosed the eviction of the former tenant or the rent cap. Judge Lu has not decided what legal action, if any, to pursue against the Sellers. The Court makes this disclosure so that all parties are aware of all facts reasonably related to the issue of disqualification. The Court has no basis to recuse itself. The Court can remain fair and impartial to all parties.

Upon making this disclosure, the Court advised that any party that desires to do so may request a continuance to file a timely motion to disqualify Judge Lu and/or to determine whether it wishes to file such a motion.

Having been so advised, Plaintiff’s Counsel requested a continuance of the hearing, which the Court granted. The court advised that any party that wished to disqualify Judge Elaine Lu must file and serve a motion for disqualification within 21 days of the October 9, 2020 hearing. The court noted that the failure to file and serve a motion for disqualification within 21 days would be deemed a waiver of any disqualification issues. No party has filed a motion for disqualification since the last court date.

At the outset of the hearing on November 12, 2020, the court advised that since the October 9, 2020 hearing, Judge Lu has retained counsel and has decided to pursue mediation with the Sellers.

Having been so advised, all parties indicated that they are ready to proceed with the hearing on Defendant’s motion to enforce settlement today. All parties further indicated that they waive any disqualification issues.

Electronic Filing

As a preliminary matter, the Court reminds the parties that “[e]lectronic documents must be electronically filed in PDF, text searchable format when technologically feasible without impairment of the document’s image.” (First Amended General Order re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil, 5/3/19.) Any failure to comply with this aspect of the First Amended General Order in the future may result in the pleading at issue being stricken.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 provides that “[i]f 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.” In ruling on a motion to enter judgment the trial court acts as a trier of fact. It must determine whether the parties entered into a valid and binding settlement. To do so it may receive oral testimony in addition to declarations. (Kohn v. Jaymar-Ruby, Inc. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1530, 1533.) However, “the power of the trial court under section 664.6 ‘is extremely limited.’” (Howeth v. Coffelt (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 126, 134.)

Discussion

Defendants seek to enforce the settlement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6. Specifically, Defendants contend that after the expiration of the Lease between the parties, Plaintiff did not vacate the premises, as she was obligated to do under the settlement agreement on May 31, 2019.

The May 6, 2019, Minute Order for the mandatory settlement conference between the parties indicates:

The case settles. The terms of the settlement are put forth on the record in open court as follows:

The complaint and cross-complaint will be dismissed with prejudice.

Each party is to bear their own fees and costs.

The parties will enter into a one-year lease agreement. In the first year, tenant Lim will have the option to terminate the lease with 60 days written notice.

After the first year, the lease will continue month to month with each party having the option to terminate the lease with 60 days written notice.

The rent will be $3000.00 per month and will not increase.

Landlord is to pay all maintenance costs except costs to maintain the pool, which will be the responsibility of tenant Lim.

The parties will execute a stipulation for entry of judgment for possession that can only be enforced upon breach of the lease and failure to cure the breach within 10 days written notice of the breach. The stipulation for entry of judgment can be enforced on an ex parte basis.

The lis pendens will be released.

The settlement is subject to execution of a long form settlement agreement.

The Court will retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement under CCP 664.6

(Laset Decl. Ex. A.)

On October 16, 2019, Counsel for the parties represented that the parties had executed a written settlement agreement that was an addendum to the terms of the settlement that were stated in the minute order dated 05/06/2019. (Laset Decl. Ex. B.) The written settlement agreement similarly provides that the material terms of the lease between the parties are:

a. The Lease term is from June 1, 2019, through May 31, 2020 (the “Initial Term”)

b. The monthly rent shall be $3,000.

c. Following the Initial Term, the Lease shall continue month to month unless terminated on 60 Days’ written notice by the [Defendants].

d. During the Initial Term, [Plaintiff] shall have the right to terminate the Lease on 60 days written notice to the [Defendants]

e. The [Defendants] agree to pay for all costs of maintenance for the Premises, with the exception of costs incurred for maintaining the swimming pool

(Laset Decl. Ex. C § 2. Lease Agreement.)

The written settlement agreement also provides for entry of judgment pursuant to the parties’ stipulation.

3. Stipulation for Entry of Judgment.

Contemporaneously upon the execution of this Settlement Agreement, [Plaintiff] agrees to execute the Stipulation for Entry of Judgment of Possession. In the event that [Plaintiff] fails to make a monthly payment when due under the Lease, and such payment default continues for 10 days after written notice to [Plaintiff], the [Defendants] shall have a judgment as against [Plaintiff] for possession of the Premises. In that even, the [Defendants] shall be free to immediately file the Stipulation and obtain Entry of the Judgment on an ex parte basis. The only issue at the ex parte hearing will be whether there has been a default under the Lease. The Stipulation for entry of Judgment shall be in the form attached hereto as Exhibit “C” (“Stipulated Judgment”).

If each of the terms and conditions of the Lease, including but not Limited to the timely tender of all payments provided for therein, are performed, the [Defendants] agree to forego filing of the Stipulated Judgment with the Court.

(Laset Decl. Ex. C § 3. Stipulation for Entry of Judgment.)

Defendants state that pursuant to the termination provision of the parties’ settlement agreement, Defendants provided 60-day notice on March 12, 2020 that the lease would terminate on May 31, 2020. (Laset Decl. ¶ 8, Ex. F.) Defendants have fulfilled all obligations under the settlement agreement. (Id. ¶ 9.) However, Plaintiff has failed to vacate the premises. (Id. ¶ 15.) In sum, “[Plaintiff] continues to unlawfully occupy the Premises to this day, despite the termination of her tenancy pursuant to the Lease and Settlement Agreement. The [Defendants] are not, at this time, seeking to terminate [Plaintiff]’s Lease for her failure to make monthly payments. As a result, the [Defendants] respectfully request that this Court enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement and enter Judgment.” (Motion p.6:22-26, [italics added].)

Critically, however, the stipulated judgment provides for entry of judgment only for failure to pay rent. (Laset Decl. Ex. C § 3 Stipulation for Entry of Judgment, [“In the event that [Plaintiff] fails to make a monthly payment when due under the Lease, and such payment default continues for 10 days after written notice to [Plaintiff], the [Defendants]] shall have a judgment as against [Plaintiff] for possession of the Premises.”].) The stipulation for entry of judgment of possession does not provide for entry of judgment of possession based on a 60-day notice of termination. This reading of the parties’ agreement is solidified by the stipulated judgment attached to the settlement agreement, which identically states at section 6 that “[i]n the event that [Plaintiff] fails to make a monthly payment when due under the Lease, and such payment default continues for 10 days after written notice to [Plaintiff], the [Defendants] shall have a judgment as against [Plaintiff] for possession of the Premises.” (Laset Decl. Ex. C, attached exhibit C [italics added].) This settlement agreement and mutual general release is signed by all the parties. The stipulated judgment does not provide for an entry of judgment based on failure to vacate after the 60-day notice. Pursuant to the express terms of the parties’ agreement, the only ground for entering the stipulated judgment was the failure to timely pay rent 10 days after written notice of a default in rent payment. As noted above, Defendants specifically are not moving for entry of judgment based upon Plaintiff’s failure to pay rent.

Nor can the court amend or add terms to the stipulated judgment or the settlement agreement as such action falls outside the court’s power under Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6. “‘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 [citations], 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.’” (Machado v. Myers (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 779, 790 [internal citations omitted].)

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to enter judgment under Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6 is DENIED. The stipulated judgment may not be entered on the basis of Defendants’ termination of the lease, which is the only ground on which Defendants move for entry of judgment. The court declines to address the parties’ additional arguments on the applicability or non-applicability of statutes made as to unlawful detainer actions pursuant to the COVID-19 pandemic raised in the opposition and reply. The court notes that this denial in no way prevents Defendants from filing and pursuing an unlawful detainer action.

Conclusion and order

Based on the foregoing, the motion brought by defendants Mawi C. Laset, Roberto R. Laset, Mr. and Ms. Laset as Trustees of the Laset Family Trust dated 3/23/15’s to Enter Judgment Pursuant to Stipulation for Entry of Judgment is DENIED.

Moving Party is ordered to provide notice of this order and file proof of service of such.

DATED: November 12, 2020 ___________________________

Elaine Lu

Judge of the Superior Court


[1] On April 17, 2019, the court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to the first, second, third, and fifth causes of action. (Order 4/17/19.)

Case Number: BC644499    Hearing Date: October 09, 2020    Dept: 26

IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT PHYSICAL DISTANCING AND UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE, THE COURT STRONGLY ENCOURAGES ALL COUNSEL AND ALL PARTIES TO APPEAR REMOTELY FOR NON-TRIAL AND NON-EVIDENTIARY MATTERS, INCLUDING THIS MOTION.

The Court makes the following disclosure:

Judge Elaine Lu recently purchased a vacant duplex. After the close of escrow in August 2020, Judge Lu learned in September 2020 (1) that Sellers’ MLS listing contained misrepresentations regarding rent and (2) that Sellers had evicted the former tenant for one of the units as a result of which the rent for that unit is capped under rent control laws; the rent for that unit is capped at an amount lower than what Sellers had stated as rent in the MLS listing.  Sellers never disclosed the eviction of the former tenant or the rent cap. Judge Lu has not decided what legal action, if any, to pursue against the Sellers.

The Court makes this disclosure so that the parties are aware of all facts reasonably related to the issue of disqualification. The Court has no basis to recuse itself. The Court can remain fair and impartial to all parties.

At the outset of the hearing on Defendants/Cross-Complainants’Notice Of Motion And Motion for An Order Enforcing Settlement And Entering Judgment Thereon Pursuant To C.C.P. §664.6, the Court will provide all parties with an opportunity to seek a continuance: (1) to bring a disqualification motion before proceeding with the hearing and/or (2) to consider whether to bring such a motion for disqualification of the court.

The hearing on Defendants/Cross-Complainants’Notice Of Motion And Motion for An Order Enforcing Settlement And Entering Judgment Thereon Pursuant To C.C.P. §664.6 will proceed as scheduled on October 9, 2020 only if all parties expressly waive their right to bring a disqualification motion.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer MCCULLAH, TANYA C

Latest cases represented by Lawyer Brian Andrew Paino