This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/28/2019 at 00:27:59 (UTC).

CARLOS TORRES ET AL VS ALVARADO LLC ET AL

Case Summary

On 09/06/2017 CARLOS TORRES filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against ALVARADO LLC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is RANDOLPH M. HAMMOCK. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4877

  • Filing Date:

    09/06/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

RANDOLPH M. HAMMOCK

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

TORRES CARLOS

RIOS MARICELA AGUILERA

CERA FANNY

TORRES OSCAR

HERNANDEZ ISRAEL

GARCIA CHRISTIAN VARGAS

CASTENEDA MARIA

VARGAS-FLORES ANGELA

HAPES SEAN

CARDENAS-VALDEZ MARIA DE LA LUZ

MANZANARES-CARDENAS AZUCENA

JIMENEZ-CARDENAS ARTURO

VILLACINA GODINEZ OSCAR

Defendants and Respondents

FIGUEROA ANA

ALVARADO LLC

DOES 1 THROUGH 50

MF PROPERTY MANAGEMENT INC.

341 S. ALVARADO LLC

COMMONWEALTH PROPERTIES LLC

Minor

HAPES DAMIAN

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff, Petitioner and Minor Attorneys

GIBALEVICH DANIEL A. ESQ.

GIBALEVICH DANIEL ANDREW

Defendant Attorney

INJEYAN MARAL I.

 

Court Documents

NOTICE RE: CONTINUANCE OF HEARING

3/20/2018: NOTICE RE: CONTINUANCE OF HEARING

Unknown

4/24/2018: Unknown

Unknown

4/30/2018: Unknown

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND HEARING

5/10/2018: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND HEARING

PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO RECLASSIFY CASE FROM UNLIMITED TO LIMITED; AND DECLARATION OF MARICE1A AGUILERA RIOS

7/10/2018: PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO RECLASSIFY CASE FROM UNLIMITED TO LIMITED; AND DECLARATION OF MARICE1A AGUILERA RIOS

Order

11/14/2018: Order

Proof of Service by Mail

12/31/2018: Proof of Service by Mail

Notice of Lien

12/31/2018: Notice of Lien

Order

5/6/2019: Order

Order

5/23/2019: Order

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

1/11/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

Unknown

1/19/2018: Unknown

SUMMONS

11/28/2017: SUMMONS

NOTICE OF CONTINUED CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

12/4/2017: NOTICE OF CONTINUED CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

EX PARTE APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM-CIVIL

10/6/2017: EX PARTE APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM-CIVIL

APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM?CIVIL

9/6/2017: APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM?CIVIL

NOTICE OF REJECTION - APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM

9/20/2017: NOTICE OF REJECTION - APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

9/18/2017: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

26 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/23/2019
  • Order (CONTINUING THE TRIAL AND ALL TRIAL ASSOCIATED DATES); Filed by Carlos Torres (Plaintiff); Oscar Torres (Plaintiff); Maria Castaneda (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/21/2019
  • Stipulation - No Order (STIPULATION OF COUNSEL TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND ALL TRIAL ASSOCIATED DATES); Filed by Carlos Torres (Plaintiff); Oscar Torres (Plaintiff); Maria Castaneda (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2019
  • Proof of Personal Service; Filed by Carlos Torres (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2019
  • Proof of Personal Service; Filed by Carlos Torres (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/06/2019
  • Order ([Proposed]Order Permitting Plaintiffs To Serve Defendants Alvarado LLC and Commonwelath Properties LLC through The Secretary of State); Filed by Carlos Torres (Plaintiff); Oscar Torres (Plaintiff); Maria Castaneda (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/06/2019
  • Stipulation and Order (Joint Stipulation For an Order Permitting Plaintiffs To Serve Defendants Alvarado LLC and Commonwelath Properties LLC through The Secretary of State); Filed by Carlos Torres (Plaintiff); Oscar Torres (Plaintiff); Maria Castaneda (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/31/2018
  • Proof of Service of Orders Granting Plaintiff's Attorneys' Motion To Be Relieved As Counsel For Arturo Jimnez-Cardenas; Filed by Carlos Torres (Plaintiff); Oscar Torres (Plaintiff); Maria Castaneda (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/31/2018
  • Notice of Attorney Lien of Dag Law Firm, APC; Filed by Carlos Torres (Plaintiff); Oscar Torres (Plaintiff); Maria Castaneda (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/14/2018
  • at 08:35 AM in Department 47, Randolph M. Hammock, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel (For Plaintiff Arturo Jimenez-Cardenas) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/14/2018
  • Ruling - Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
55 More Docket Entries
  • 10/11/2017
  • FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. BREACH OF WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/06/2017
  • EX PARTE APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM-CIVIL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/06/2017
  • Application ; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/20/2017
  • NOTICE OF REJECTION - APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/18/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/18/2017
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/06/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Carlos Torres (Plaintiff); Oscar Torres (Plaintiff); Maria Castaneda (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/06/2017
  • Application ; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/06/2017
  • APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM CIVIL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/06/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: 1. BREACH OF WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY ;ETC

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC674877    Hearing Date: November 30, 2020    Dept: 47

Carlos Torres, et al. v. Alvarado LLC, et al.

MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Carlos Torres, et al.

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendant Alvarado, LLC (late opposition).

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants have failed to correct the uninhabitable conditions at the apartment building rented by Plaintiff tenants.

Plaintiffs move to enforce a settlement and request sanctions.

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiffs’ motion to enforce settlement and for sanctions is DENIED.

ANALYSIS

Motion To Enforce Settlement

Late-Filed Opposition

Defendant’s opposition was due on November 13, 2020, given the Court holidays on November 26 and November 27. The opposition was filed a week late, on November 20, 2020.

The Court has exercised its discretion to consider the late-filed opposition. However, the opposition is not based on an argument that the Court lacks jurisdiction to reach, as discussed below. Therefore, considering the opposition did not alter the analysis below.

Analysis

Plaintiffs seek an order compelling Defendant Alvarado LLC to comply with its obligations under the parties’ settlement agreement and imposing monetary sanctions against Defendant.

CCP § 664.6 provides:

If the 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.

Here, the parties stipulated to a settlement in a writing signed by the parties themselves. (Declaration of Rachel Fishenfeld, Exh. A.) The parties also stipulated that the Court would have “continuing jurisdiction pursuant to Civil Code Section 664.6 to enforce this agreement even if and after this action is dismissed with prejudice.” (Id. ¶ 11.) However, the parties did not file this stipulation with the Court and request that it retain jurisdiction until after the case was dismissed, and therefore the Court no longer has jurisdiction over this matter. (MesaRHF Partners, L.P. v. City of Los Angeles (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 913, 917-918.) In MesaRHF Partners – a case Plaintiffs do not cite – the court made clear that the parties must file their request for the Court to retain jurisdiction before the case is dismissed:

The City contends that the settlement agreements, which were never presented to the trial court before Mesa, Hill, and Olive requested dismissal, were the request and that request was then communicated to the trial court via the Judicial Council form CIV-110. We disagree.

The settlement agreements were not attached to the Judicial Council form requests for dismissal or otherwise transmitted to the trial court before the cases were dismissed. The City's argument runs directly contrary to our Supreme Court's determination that “the term ‘parties’ as used in section 664.6 … means the litigants themselves, and does not include their attorneys of record.” (Levy v. Superior Court (1995) 10 Cal.4th 578, 586 [41 Cal. Rptr. 2d 878, 896 P.2d 171].) The City makes an impassioned plea that parties will be caught in a “‘Catch 22’ where any path to settlement enforcement potentially could be foreclosed to them.’” Given the instruction to litigants in the published cases on this topic, we are not persuaded by the City's argument. Mesa, Olive, and Hill can, for example, file a new action for breach of the settlement agreement. (See, e.g., Hagan Engineering, Inc. v. Mills (2003) 115 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1011 [9 Cal. Rptr. 3d 723].) In this case, the parties could have easily invoked section 664.6 by filing a stipulation and proposed order either attaching a copy of the settlement agreement and requesting that the trial court retain jurisdiction under section 664.6 or a stipulation and proposed order signed by the parties noting the settlement and requesting that the trial court retain jurisdiction under section 664.6. The process need not be complex. But strict compliance demands that the process be followed.

(MesaRHF Partners, supra, 33 Cal.App.5th at 917-918, bold emphasis added.)

Here, the Court acknowledges that the parties agreed to the Court’s continuing jurisdiction. (Fishenfeld Decl., Exh. A, ¶ 11.) However, the first time that document was filed was on October 15, 2020. The case was already dismissed with prejudice on October 6, 2020. Plaintiffs had filed a notice of settlement on July 6, 2020, but that notice did not include any stipulation regarding the Court’s continuing jurisdiction as required.

Accordingly, the motion to enforce the settlement agreement pursuant to CCP § 664.6 and for sanctions is DENIED based upon a lack of jurisdiction to hear this motion.[1]

Moving Party to give notice, unless waived.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 30, 2020 ___________________________________

Randolph M. Hammock

Judge of the Superior Court

Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing.  All interested parties must be copied on the email.  It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.


[1] Of course, there is nothing in this ruling which would prevent the Plaintiff from filing a new civil action against the Defendant Alvarado, LLC for breach of the settlement agreement. In such an event, the Plaintiff is reminded to file the required Notice of Related Case under the applicable Cal. Rules of Court.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where MF PROPERTY MANAGEMENT INC is a litigant

Latest cases where ALVARADO LLC is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer GIBALEVICH DANIEL A. ESQ.