Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC659605    Hearing Date: January 28, 2020    Dept: 73

1/28/2020

Dept. 73

Rafael Ongkeko, Judge presiding

ALBA RAMIREZ, et al. v. 718 LAR, LLC (BC659605)

Counsel for Plaintiffs/moving parties: Christofer Chapman; Jason Friedman (Stark, etc.)

Counsel for Defendant/opposing party 718 LAR, LLC: Seymour Everett; Samantha Dorey (Everett, etc.); Michael Ohira; Tim Agajanian (Ropers, etc.)

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION PURSUANT TO CCP § 664.6 TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT, FOR INTEREST AND FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES INCURRED ENFORCING SETTLEMENT (filed 1/6/20)

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED. Attorney fee requests are DENIED. Plaintiffs should be prepared to address the OSCs.

Discussion

This is a habitability lawsuit. Defendant 718 LAR LLC owns apartment building located at 718 S. Rampart Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90057. Plaintiffs are (or once were) tenants in that apartment building.

On August 7, 2019, the parties executed a settlement agreement. On October 24, 2019, the court granted Plaintiffs’ petitions to approve the minors’ compromise. The court issued orders to deposit the minors’ settlement funds into blocked accounts.

On January 6, 2020, Plaintiffs filed this motion. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, Plaintiffs move the court to: (1) enforce settlement because Defendants failed to timely pay the settlement monies by November 8, 2019; and (2) order Defendant to pay Plaintiffs the attorney fees incurred to enforce the settlement, plus interest thereon—$4,782.60.

On January 14, 2020, Defendant filed an objection (also requesting fees). It appears the payments have actually been made, rendering at least part of the motion either misleading or moot. Plaintiffs have not filed a reply.

ANALYSIS

A. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enforce Settlement Is Denied

“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.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 664.6.)

A party moving for entry of judgment pursuant to section 664.6 need not establish a breach of the settlement agreement—the court is authorized to enter judgment per the settlement regardless of whether the settlement's obligations were performed or excused. (Hines v. Lukes (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1184-1185.)

Here, Plaintiffs’ motion is improper. First, Plaintiffs’ January 6, 2020 motion, which was served via overnight mail, is untimely because it should have been filed and served by January 1, 2020. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1005, subd. (b) [16 court-day notice period increased by 2 calendar days for overnight delivery].)

Second, a writing must be authenticated by declarations or other evidence establishing that the writing is what it purports to be. (Evid. Code §§ 250, 1401, subd. (a).) Plaintiffs’ counsel’s declaration fails to authenticate any of the exhibits—and does not even reference Exhibit B.

Third, the term “parties” in section 664.6 means the litigants themselves—not their attorneys of record. (Davidson v. Superior Court (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 514, 528 [finding settlement agreement held unenforceable because based on stipulated settlement signed only by attorneys].) Plaintiffs’ Exhibit A is not enforceable in this motion because it is only signed by counsel. (See Pls.’ Motion, Ex. A, p. 3.)

Fourth, “parties” is also interpreted to mean that the settlement must be signed by both the party seeking to enforce the agreement under section 664.6 and the party against whom it is to be enforced. (Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 299, 304.) Plaintiffs’ Exhibit B is not enforceable because it is not signed by Defendant. (See id., Ex. B, p. 9.)

For these reasons, the court need not consider the parties’ remaining arguments.

Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED.

B. Attorney Fee Requests Are Denied

Plaintiffs request $4,782.60 in attorney fees. In opposition, Defendant requests $3,483.00.

Because both parties do not cite any authority to support their entitlement to attorney fees. Even if they did, the court declines to award fees. Fee requests are DENIED.

Unless waived, notice of ruling by Defendant.

Case Number: BC659605    Hearing Date: October 24, 2019    Dept: 73

PETITION TO APPROVE MINOR’S COMPROMISE

MP: Plaintiffs Alba Ramirez, William Zamora, Cristobal Gonzalez, Eduardo Rosa, Hector Rosa, Elizabeth Medina, Sabrina Medina, Ignacio Alejandro Cuadras, Brian Esparza, Clementa Marroquin, Damaris Marroquin, Sela Marroquin, and Andres Fix Medina

RP: None

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiffs’ petition is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiffs cannot file a single petition for all minors. Rather, each minor must file a petition.

Summary of Case

Since February 5, 2013, Defendant 718 LAR LLC has owned the apartment building located at 718 S. Rampart Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90057. Plaintiffs now or have been tenants in the apartment building—units 302 and 309. The apartment building was constructed before 1978 and is subject to the Rent Stabilization Ordinance.

On April 28, 2017, Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against Defendant for:

C/A 1: Breach of Implied Warrant of Habitability

C/A 2: Breach of Statutory Warranty of Habitability

C/A 3: Breach of the Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment

C/A 4: Negligence

C/A 5: Violation of Civil Code § 1942.4

On May 3, 2019, Plaintiffs dismissed Abelino Marroquin.

On May 14, 2019, Defendant filed these eight motions. On June 14, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a notice of non-oppositions. On the same day, Plaintiffs’ counsel filed declarations stating the oppositions (without identifying any particular Plaintiff) were inadvertently not timely filed due to misunderstanding between counsel and his legal staff. (See Jason B. Friedman Decl., ¶¶ 2-8.)

On August 8, 2019, the court proceeded in examination of the petitioners and minor petitioners to avoid further appearances by said parties (finding the petitioners and minors understand, acknowledge, and accept the terms of the settlement).

Summary of Issues

On July 24, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a single petition to approve all minors’ compromises. The petition indicates that the 718 LAR, LLC has agreed to settle for $120,000.

ANALYSIS

A petition must be filed for each minor. A single petition is not sufficient for these purposes, as California Rule of Court 7.950, requires each petition to be verified by the petitioner. The petition Plaintiffs filed indicates there are multiple petitioners, but the petition is only verified by Elizabeth Medina. This is problematic because Elizabeth Medina is not the guardian ad litem to all the minors.

Plaintiffs’ petition is thus DENIED.