This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/13/2019 at 06:27:28 (UTC).

ARSEN OGANESYAN VS AW COLLISION SCI

Case Summary

On 09/13/2017 ARSEN OGANESYAN filed a Labor - Other Labor lawsuit against AW COLLISION SCI. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are GAIL FEUER, HOLLY E. KENDIG and ELAINE LU. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****5725

  • Filing Date:

    09/13/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Other Labor

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

GAIL FEUER

HOLLY E. KENDIG

ELAINE LU

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

OGANESYAN ARSEN

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 TO 50

AW COLLISION SCI

SCI AW COLLISION

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

BOYAJIAN ERIC A. ESQ.

HENNIG ROBERT ALAN ESQ.

BOYAJIAN ERIC ALBERT ESQ.

Defendant and Respondent Attorney

LONG CHRISTINE H. ESQ.

 

Court Documents

SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NOS. 26-28 AND 35-45

3/29/2018: SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NOS. 26-28 AND 35-45

Minute Order

6/8/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

6/20/2018: Minute Order

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

7/9/2018: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Unknown

8/31/2018: Unknown

Minute Order

10/16/2018: Minute Order

Unknown

10/16/2018: Unknown

Response

10/17/2018: Response

Proof of Service by Mail

11/9/2018: Proof of Service by Mail

Notice

11/9/2018: Notice

Proof of Service by Mail

5/3/2019: Proof of Service by Mail

Unknown

5/6/2019: Unknown

Stipulation and Order

6/10/2019: Stipulation and Order

Unknown

1/12/2018: Unknown

Unknown

12/22/2017: Unknown

Unknown

12/26/2017: Unknown

NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBERS OF THE LAW OFFICES OF ERIC A. BOYAJIAN

11/9/2017: NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBERS OF THE LAW OFFICES OF ERIC A. BOYAJIAN

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

10/5/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

57 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/10/2019
  • Stipulation and Order (Stipulation to Continue July 11, 2019 OSC Hearing re: Dismissal; [Proposed] Order); Filed by ARSEN OGANESYAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/06/2019
  • at 10:13 AM in Department 26, Elaine Lu, Presiding; Non-Appearance Case Review

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/06/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Non-Appearance Case Review)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/06/2019
  • Notice of Settlement; Filed by ARSEN OGANESYAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/06/2019
  • Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Non-Appearance Case Review) of 05/06/2019); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/03/2019
  • Proof of Service by Mail; Filed by ARSEN OGANESYAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/03/2019
  • Proof of Service by Mail; Filed by ARSEN OGANESYAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/08/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 26, Elaine Lu, Presiding; Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by ARSEN OGANESYAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/04/2019
  • Notice (of Continued Motion to Enforce Subpoena to Automatic Data Processing, Inc. and Request for Monetary Sanctions; Proof of Service); Filed by ARSEN OGANESYAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
107 More Docket Entries
  • 11/09/2017
  • NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBERS OF THE LAW OFFICES OF ERIC A. BOYAJIAN

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/18/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/18/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by ARSEN OGANESYAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/05/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by ARSEN OGANESYAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/05/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/19/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/19/2017
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/13/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR: 1. MINIMUM WAGE VIOLATIONS;ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/13/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/13/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by ARSEN OGANESYAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC675725    Hearing Date: November 25, 2019    Dept: 26

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 26

ARSEN OGANESYAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

AW COLLISION SCI, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC675725

Hearing Date: November 25, 2019

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

PLAINTIFF’S Motion for entry of judgment on settlement pursuant to C.C.P. §664.6

BACKGROUND

On September 13, 2017, Plaintiff Arsen Oganesyan (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant AW Collision SCI (“Defendant”), asserting causes of action for minimum wage violations, overtime violations, failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to provide meal periods, inaccurate wage statements, failure to provide wages due upon discharge, failure to reimburse necessary expenses, and unfair competition.

On November 28, 2017, Defendant filed an answer to the complaint.

On May 6, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement of the Entire Case.

On October 11, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for entry of judgment on settlement, pursuant to C.C.P. §664.6, along with an application to file portions of the motion under seal. The motion was noticed for hearing on May 28, 2020.

On October 23, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff’s ex parte application and advanced the hearing on the motion to enforce settlement and application to file under seal to November 25, 2019.

On November 12, 2019, Defendant filed an opposition to the motion. On November 18, 2019, Plaintiff filed a reply. On November 21, 2019, Defendant AW filed a surreply.[1]

Legal Standard

C.C.P. §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 hearing a C.C.P. §664.6 motion, the trial court may receive evidence, determine disputed facts, and enter terms of a settlement agreement as a judgment. (Bowers v. Raymond J. Lucia Companies, Inc. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 724, 732.) The Court may also receive oral testimony in addition to declarations. (Kohn v. Jaymar-Ruby, Inc. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1530, 1533.) The Court may interpret the terms and conditions to settlement (Fiore v. Alvord (1985) 182 Cal.App.3d 561, 566), but the Court may not create material terms of a settlement, as opposed to deciding what terms the parties themselves have previously agreed upon (Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 810).

Strict compliance with the statutory requirements is necessary before a court can enforce a settlement agreement under this statute. (Sully-Miller Contracting Co. v. Gledson/Cashman Construction, Inc. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 30, 37.) The party seeking to enforce a settlement “must first establish the agreement at issue was set forth ‘in a writing signed by the parties’ (§ 664.6) or was made orally before the court. [Citation.]” (Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 299, 304.)

The settlement must include the signatures of the parties seeking to enforce the agreement, and against whom enforcement is sought. (J.B.B. Investment Partners, Ltd. v. Fair (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 974, 985.) “Parties” under CCP § 664.6 means the litigants themselves, and not their attorneys, must expressly consent to settlement. (Levy v. Superior Court (1995) 10 Cal.4th 578, 586 [“we conclude that the term ‘parties’ as used in section 664.6…means the litigants themselves, and does not include their attorneys of record”].)

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff moves for an order entering judgment against Defendant based on the parties’ written and signed settlement agreement, pursuant to C.C.P. §664.6.

Application to File Under Seal

As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff’s application to file portions of the instant motion under seal is denied.

The Court may order a record sealed if it finds that (1) an overriding interest exists that overcomes the right of public access to the record; (2) the overriding interest supports sealing the record; (3) a substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed; (4) the request is narrowly tailored; and (5) no less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d).)

Plaintiff seeks to seal all references to the dollar amounts of the settlement payments agreed upon by the parties in their settlement agreement. (Application, pg. 2.) However, Plaintiff’s application is not accompanied by a declaration containing facts sufficient to justify the sealing. (See CRC 2.550(d) and 2.551(b)(1).) Plaintiff only filed the application to comply with the Stipulation and Protective Order. (Declaration of Zargarian ¶2; Exhibit 1.) (Application, pg. 3.) However, the “court must not permit a record to be filed under seal based solely on the agreement or stipulation of the parties.” (CRC 2.551(a).) Moreover, Plaintiff essentially concedes the application to seal is unsupported. The application provides, in pertinent part, as follows: “Plaintiff does not believe the factors listed in Rule 2.550 are met here, as any judgment entered by this Court enforcing the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement would presumably reference the dollar amounts of the settlement payments agreed to by the parties” and, as such, “this information will ultimately become available in the public record, whether or not this application to seal is granted.” (Application, pg. 3.) Nor does Defendant AW’s surreply establish the necessary factors under Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d).

Thus, Plaintiff’s application to file portions of the instant motion under seal is denied. Plaintiff is ordered to publicly file its unredacted motion to enforce settlement unless prior to the hearing on this motion Defendant files and serves supplemental briefing and evidence from which the Court may find the necessary factors under Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d).

Motion to Enforce Settlement

Plaintiff is entitled to an order, pursuant to C.C.P. §664.6, entering judgment against Defendant in accordance with the terms of terms of the parties’ settlement agreement. Plaintiff has submitted evidence that the parties entered into a written settlement agreement on April 26, 2019. (Declaration of Boyajian ¶2; Exhibit A.) The settlement agreement is signed by Plaintiff and Defendant (via Ben Lamond). (Declaration of Boyajian ¶2; Exhibit A.) Defendant agreed to pay $140,000.00 in settlement funds after receipt of Plaintiff’s executed agreement. (Declaration of Boyajian ¶2; Exhibit A.) Per the agreement, the settlement would be paid within 90 days. The parties agreed $5,000.00 of the settlement funds would be characterized as wages and $135,000.00 of the settlement funds would be as a 1099 payable to the Law Offices of Eric A. Boyajian Attorney Trust. (Declaration of Boyajian ¶2; Exhibit A.) The settlement agreement contains all material terms. (Declaration of Boyajian ¶2; Exhibit A.) Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement of Entire Case on May 3, 2019. (Declaration of Boyajian ¶3; Exhibit B.) Defendant has not paid the settlement funds. (Declaration of Boyajian ¶¶5-10; Exhibits C-H.)

In opposition, Defendant represents it “is not intentionally avoiding the payment of the settlement in this case,” “Plaintiff’s counsel is aware of Defendant’s financial situation and the need to secure funding, which required a set total dollar amount and a payment plan in the class action matter,” and Plaintiff filed an unnecessary motion to increase attorneys’ fees. (Opposition, pg. 3.) However, Defendant’s motion is not supported by admissible evidence. Defendant did not provide the Court with a declaration explaining why the settlement funds have not been timely paid, identifying the efforts made by Defendant, if any, to secure funding for payment of the settlement, and providing a timeline for payment of the settlement funds. Nor does Defendant AW point the Court to any provision within the settlement agreement that establish a contingency for the settlement payments or that justify a delay of payment beyond 90 days.

The opposition states that it “is the expectation of Defense counsel that [delivery of the funds] will be completed before the time for hearing on this motion.” (Opposition, pg. 3.) However, Defendant has produced no evidence of such payment prior to the hearing on this motion. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is granted.

//

//

//

//

//

//

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s application to file portions of the motion for entry of judgment on settlement pursuant to C.C.P. §664.6 under seal is denied.

Plaintiff’s motion for entry of judgment on settlement pursuant to C.C.P. §664.6 is granted. Judgment shall be entered in favor of Plaintiff Arsen Oganesyan and against defendant AW Collision SCI in the amount of $140,000.

Plaintiff is ordered to provide notice of this order, and file proof of service of such within five days.

DATED: November 25, 2019 ___________________________

Elaine Lu

Judge of the Superior Court


[1] Defendant did not seek leave to file a surreply. Nonetheless, the Court will, in its discretion, consider all briefing, including Defendant’s surreply.