Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/28/2019 at 12:35:59 (UTC).

DEW INVESTMENTS, LLC VS RANDY TAYLOR, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 11/20/2017 DEW INVESTMENTS, LLC filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against RANDY TAYLOR. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Burbank Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is RALPH C. HOFER. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7392

  • Filing Date:

    11/20/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Burbank Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

RALPH C. HOFER

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

DEW INVESTMENTS LLC

Defendants

THE ALLAN ENTOUS A SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP

TAYLOR REGINA

HAWRYLACK STEPHEN M.

TAYLOR RANDY

401K P/S PLAN

TAYLOR REYNA

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

AGEMIAN & FANG

AGEMIAN ANAHID

Defendant Attorneys

VUKMANOVIC LAW GROUP APC

VUKMANOVIC JOHN

BEROKIM KOUSHA

 

Court Documents

Minute Order

6/18/2019: Minute Order

Minute Order

2/28/2019: Minute Order

Minute Order

3/28/2019: Minute Order

Minute Order

12/11/2018: Minute Order

Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

11/20/2017: Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

Notice

11/20/2017: Notice

Legacy Document

11/20/2017: Legacy Document

Legacy Document

12/1/2017: Legacy Document

Request For Copies

1/25/2018: Request For Copies

Minute Order

4/19/2018: Minute Order

Legacy Document

6/15/2018: Legacy Document

Notice of Ruling

9/28/2018: Notice of Ruling

Notice

12/18/2018: Notice

Civil Case Cover Sheet

11/20/2017: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Notice of Case Management Conference

11/20/2017: Notice of Case Management Conference

Notice of Ruling

4/23/2018: Notice of Ruling

Case Management Statement

7/13/2018: Case Management Statement

Case Management Statement

7/2/2018: Case Management Statement

29 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/18/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department D; Case Management Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/18/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department D; Order to Show Cause Re: (Sanctions Against Plaintiff pursuant to Section 177.5 CCP for failure to appear on this 4/18/2019) - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/18/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department D; Order to Show Cause Re: (Related Case Determination with YC064625 filed 04/09/11, YC065698 filed (Dept B-Torrance Court) and BC570050 filed 01/21/15 (Dept S27-Long Beach Court)) - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/18/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by DEW INVESTMENTS, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/18/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Case Management Conference; Order to Show Cause Re: Related C...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/29/2019
  • Declaration (of Anahid Agemian re 6/18/19 OSC); Filed by DEW INVESTMENTS, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department D; Order to Show Cause Re: (Related Case Determination with YC064625 filed 04/09/11, YC065698 filed (Dept B-Torrance Court) and BC570050 filed 01/21/15 (Dept S27-Long Beach Court)) - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department D; Case Management Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Case Management Conference; 2) Order to Show Cause Re: Relate...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department D; Case Management Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
54 More Docket Entries
  • 12/01/2017
  • First Amended Complaint (SUMMONS ISSUED ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/01/2017
  • Summons Filed (FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/20/2017
  • Notice (Of Order to Show Cause Re Failure to Comply with Trial Court Delay Reduction Act)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/20/2017
  • Complaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/20/2017
  • Summons; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/20/2017
  • Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/20/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/20/2017
  • Complaint filed-Summons Issued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/20/2017
  • Summons Filed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/20/2017
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: EC067392    Hearing Date: October 23, 2020    Dept: NCD

TENTATIVE RULING

Calendar: 16

Date: 10/23/2020

Case No: EC 067392

Case Name: Dew Investments, LLC v. Taylor, et al.

MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

[CCP § 664.6]

Moving Party: Plaintiff DEW Investments, LLC

Responding Party: Defendants Randy Taylor and Reyna Taylor (No Opposition)

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Order that defendants comply with Settlement Agreement, make payments as required and pay plaintiff’s attorney’s fees and costs incurred in the instant motion

SUMMARY OF FACTS:

Plaintiff DEW Investments, LLC alleges that in October of 2015, plaintiff’s predecessor in interest, Levik Hagopian, entered into a purchase contract for the purchase of real property in Glendale, which was then owned by defendants Randy Taylor, Reyna Taylor, Stephen Hawrylack and The Allan Entous, a sole proprietorship, 401K P/S Plan. In October 2015, Hagopian assigned all interest in the purchase contract to purchase the subject property to plaintiff.

As part of the purchase contract, defendants and each of them represented to plaintiff that there were no lawsuits or facts known to defendants which involved title to the subject property. Plaintiff alleges that in November of 2015, escrow closed on the purchase of the subject property, and title transferred from defendants to plaintiff via grant deed which was recorded. In December of 2015, plaintiff discovered that a third party was asserting claims of title to or right to possession of the subject property, and that unlawful detainer actions had been filed against the tenants of the subject property. The FAC alleges that these unlawful detainer and claims existed at the time defendants represented to plaintiff that no such claims were being asserted against the subject property. The FAC alleges causes of action for intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract.

The file shows that on March 20, 2020, plaintiff filed a request for dismissal with prejudice of the complaint against defendant The Allan Entous Proprietorship, 401K P/S Plan, which dismissal was entered as requested that date.

On May 19, 2020, plaintiff filed a request for dismissal with prejudice of the complaint against defendant Stephen M. Hawrylack, which dismissal was entered as requested that date.

This motion was originally heard on August 21, 2020. The court published its Tentative Ruling on the evening of August 20, 2020, which was to grant the unopposed motion.

At the hearing, counsel for defendants represented to the court that counsel did not receive service of the moving papers, and therefore no opposition was filed, and the matter was continued to this date. The minute order states that counsel for plaintiff may file supplemental brief/declaration by 9/25/2020.

Defendants have not filed any further papers. Plaintiff has filed a Supplemental Declaration seeking further interest and fees given the continuance of the hearing on the motion.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff DEW Investments brings this motion for an order that defendants Randy Taylor and Reyna Taylor be ordered to comply with a written Settlement Agreement that the parties entered into during a mediation of this matter. The motion indicates that the other defendants, The Allan Entous Proprietorship, 401K P/S Plan, and defendant Stephen M. Hawrylack, have fulfilled their obligations under the Settlement Agreement, and have accordingly been dismissed from the action. Plaintiff indicates that the Taylor defendants have failed to pay the sums they agreed to pay when due.

CCP § 664.6 provides, in pertinent part:

“If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside the presence of the court...for settlement of the case,…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.”

In this case, the parties entered into a written Settlement Agreement signed by the parties outside of the presence of the court. [Ex. 1]. The matter has not yet been dismissed as to the defendants against whom the motion is brought, and the court still has jurisdiction over the matter. In addition, the parties in the written signed Settlement Agreement expressly agreed that the court “shall retain jurisdiction under CCP 664.6 until such time as all Dismissals have been filed with the Court.” [Ex. 1, para. 19].

The Second District in Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal. App.4th 793 held that a trial court may on a section 664.6 motion receive evidence, determine disputed facts and enter the terms of a settlement agreement as a judgment, but may not create the material terms of a settlement as opposed to deciding what terms the parties themselves agreed to. Weddington, at 810; Bowers v. Raymond J. Lucia Companies, Inc. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 724, 732. The trial court’s determination with respect to interpretation of the settlement agreement will not be disturbed on appeal if supported by substantial evidence. Skulnick v. Roberts Express, Inc. (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 884, 889.

The motion presents evidence that the settlement was for defendants Randy Taylor and Reyna Taylor to pay to plaintiff the sums of $6,250 by 3/25/2020 and $6,250 by 4/24/2020. [Ex. 1, para. 2]. The Settlement Agreement provides that, [“[i]n the event a party fails to perform as agreed in this Agreement, that party may seek court order under CCP 664.6. Prevailing party entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs of any such proceeding.” [Ex. 1, para. 19].

The motion also submits evidence showing that the payments were not made. [Agemian Decl., paras. 6, 12].

The motion seeks the payments due-- 2 payments of $6,250 each, or $12,500, and also interest at the legal rate of 10 % on the amounts not paid by the dates due.

Plaintiff relies on Civil Code § 3287(a), which states:

“(a) Every person who is entitled to recover damages certain, or capable of being made certain by calculation, and the right to recover which is vested in him upon a particular day, is entitled also to recover interest thereon from that day, except during such time as the debtor is prevented by law, or by the act of the creditor from paying the debt.”

The interest sought is $62.50 on the sum that was to be paid by March 25, to the date of April 24, 2020, and the sum of $481.00 on the $12,500 which was to have been paid by April 24, 2020 to August 21, 2020, the date of the hearing on this motion. [Agemian Decl, para. 19-21]. This appears appropriate.

Plaintiff also seeks attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to the Settlement Agreement for preparation of this motion, in the sum of $2,561.65. Fees are sought for 2.5 hours preparing motion, 2 hours to review opposition and draft reply, and 1 hour at the hearing @ $450 per hour (5.5 hours at $450= $2,475). [Agemian Decl., paras. 13, 14, 16, 17]. Costs are sought for a $61.65 filing fee and a $25 LAconnect fee ($86.65). [Agemian Decl., paras. 15, 18]. This totals $2,561.65, as requested. These appear reasonable and will be awarded as requested. The total sought is $15,605.15. [Agemian Decl., para. 23]. The total of the payments, interest, fees and costs is this sum ($12,500, plus $62.50 and $481.00 in interest, plus fees and costs of $2,561.65).

This appears to provide substantial evidence upon which the court may enter judgment as requested. There is no opposition to this motion, so no challenge to this evidence. The motion is granted, and judgment is entered as requested.

The Supplemental Declaration indicates that from the date of the original hearing, August 21, 2020, to the date of the continued hearing, plaintiff has incurred an additional $220 in interest owed, which will also be awarded. [Supp. Decl., para. 6]. The Supplemental Declaration also indicates that additional costs will be incurred of $15 to file the declaration and $15 to appear via LACourtconnect at the hearing, which costs will also be awarded. The Supplemental Declaration also seeks attorney’s fees of $225 for .5 hours to draft the supplemental declaration, $900 for 2 hours to draft a reply to any opposition, and 2 hours to appear at the hearing, for an additional $900. The court will award the fees to draft the Supplemental Declaration and to appear at the hearing but will not award the $900 in fees to draft a reply in light of the failure of defendants to file timely opposition. The total supplemental award will be $220 in interest, plus $30 in costs, plus $1,125 in fees, for a total of $1,375. This is added to the $15,605.15 originally sought and awarded, for a grand total of $16,980.15.

RULING:

[No Opposition]

Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and Enter Judgment Pursuant to CCP section 664.6 is GRANTED. The Court finds that parties to pending litigation stipulated to the settlement of the case in a writing signed by the parties outside the presence of the court. Judgment is therefore entered in favor of plaintiff DEW Investments, LLC, and against defendants Randy Taylor and Reyna Taylor in accordance with the Settlement Agreement executed by the parties on February 24, 2020, in the sum of $12,500, plus interest on the sums due at the legal rate in the amount of $543.50 plus $220.

The Court further finds that the Settlement Agreement provides that the prevailing party in a proceeding brought pursuant to CCP section 664.6 is entitled to attorney’s fees and costs of any such proceeding. The Court finds that plaintiff is the prevailing party and further finds the attorney’s fees and costs related to this motion to be $2,561.65, plus $1,375 [$2,561.65 requested, plus $2,275 requested], to be added to the judgment. [Total judgment $16,980.50].

GIVEN THE CORONAVIRUS CRISIS, AND TO PROMOTE APPROPRIATE SOCIAL DISTANCING, UNTIL FURTHER ORDERED, DEPARTMENT D IS ENCOURAGING AUDIO OR VIDEO APPEARANCES

Please make arrangements in advance if you wish to appear via LACourtConnect by visiting www.lacourt.org, and scheduling a remote appearance. Please note that LACourtConnect offers an audio-only appearance option at a current cost of $15.00 and a video appearance option at a cost of $23.00. Counsel and parties (including self-represented litigants) are encouraged not to personally appear, unless they have obtained advance permission of the Court. Anyone who appears in person for the hearing will be required to comply with strict social distancing measures, including, but not limited to, assigned seating, capacity limitations in the courtroom, designated waiting areas, and strictly enforced spacing in line to communicate with court staff. If no appearance is set up through LACourtConnect, or otherwise, then the Court will assume the parties are submitting on the tentative.

Case Number: EC067392    Hearing Date: August 21, 2020    Dept: NCD

TENTATIVE RULING

Calendar: 11

Date: 8/21/20

Case No: EC 067392

Case Name: Dew Investments, LLC v. Taylor, et al.

MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

[CCP § 664.6]

Moving Party: Plaintiff DEW Investments, LLC

Responding Party: Defendants Randy Taylor and Reyna Taylor (No Opposition)

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Order that defendants comply with Settlement Agreement, make payments as required and pay plaintiff’s attorney’s fees and costs incurred in the instant motion

SUMMARY OF FACTS:

Plaintiff DEW Investments, LLC alleges that in October of 2015, plaintiff’s predecessor in interest, Levik Hagopian, entered into a purchase contract for the purchase of real property in Glendale, which was then owned by defendants Randy Taylor, Reyna Taylor, Stephen Hawrylack and The Allan Entous, a sole proprietorship, 401K P/S Plan. In October 2015, Hagopian assigned all interest in the purchase contract to purchase the subject property to plaintiff.

As part of the purchase contract, defendants and each of them represented to plaintiff that there were no lawsuits or facts known to defendants which involved title to the subject property. Plaintiff alleges that in November of 201, escrow closed on the purchase of the subject property, and title transferred from defendants to plaintiff via grant deed which was recorded. In December of 2015, plaintiff discovered that a third party was asserting claims of title to or right to possession of the subject property, and that unlawful detainer actions had been filed against the tenants of the subject property. The FAC alleges that these unlawful detainer and claims existed at the time defendants represented to plaintiff that no such claims were being asserted against the subject property. The FAC alleges causes of action for intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract.

The file shows that on March 20, 2020, plaintiff filed a request for dismissal with prejudice of the complaint against defendant The Allan Entous Proprietorship, 401K P/S Plan, which dismissal was entered as requested that date.

On May 19, 2020, plaintiff filed a request for dismissal with prejudice of the complaint against defendant Stephen M. Hawrylack, which dismissal was entered as requested that date.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff DEW Investments brings this motion for an order that defendants Randy Taylor and Reyna Taylor be ordered to comply with a written Settlement Agreement that the parties entered into during a mediation of this matter. The motion indicates that the other defendants, The Allan Entous Proprietorship, 401K P/S Plan, and defendant Stephen M. Hawrylack, have fulfilled their obligations under the Settlement Agreement, and have accordingly been dismissed from the action. Plaintiff indicates that the Taylor defendants have failed to pay the sums they agreed to pay when due.

CCP § 664.6 provides, in pertinent part:

“If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside the presence of the court...for settlement of the case,... 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.”

In this case, the parties entered into a written Settlement Agreement signed by the parties outside of the presence of the court. [Ex. 1]. The matter has not yet been dismissed as to the defendants against whom the motion is brought, and the court still has jurisdiction over the matter. In addition, the parties in the written signed Settlement Agreement expressly agreed that the court “shall retain jurisdiction under CCP 664.6 until such time as all Dismissals have been filed with the Court.” [Ex. 1, para. 19].

The Second District in Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal. App.4th 793 held that a trial court may on a section 664.6 motion receive evidence, determine disputed facts and enter the terms of a settlement agreement as a judgment, but may not create the material terms of a settlement as opposed to deciding what terms the parties themselves agreed to. Weddington, at 810; Bowers v. Raymond J. Lucia Companies, Inc. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 724, 732. The trial court’s determination with respect to interpretation of the settlement agreement will not be disturbed on appeal if supported by substantial evidence. Skulnick v. Roberts Express, Inc. (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 884, 889.

The motion presents evidence that the settlement was for defendants Randy Taylor and Reyna Taylor to pay to plaintiff the sums of $6,250 by 3/25/2020 and $6,250 by 4/24/2020. [Ex. 1, para. 2]. The Settlement Agreement provides that, [“[i]n the event a party fails to perform as agreed in this Agreement, that party may seek court order under CCP 664.6. Prevailing party entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs of any such proceeding.” [Ex. 1, para. 19].

The motion also submits evidence showing that the payments were not made. [Agemian Decl., paras. 6, 12].

The motion seeks the payments due-- 2 payments of $6,250 each, or $12,500, and also interest at the legal rate of 10 % on the amounts not paid by the dates due.

Plaintiff relies on Civil Code § 3287(a), which states:

“(a) Every person who is entitled to recover damages certain, or capable of being made certain by calculation, and the right to recover which is vested in him upon a particular day, is entitled also to recover interest thereon from that day, except during such time as the debtor is prevented by law, or by the act of the creditor from paying the debt.”

The interest sought is $62.50 on the sum that was to be paid by March 25, to the date of April 24, 2020, and the sum of $481.00 on the $12,500 which was to have been paid by April 24, 2020 to August 21, 2020, the date of the hearing on this motion. [Agemian Decl, para. 19-21]. This appears appropriate.

Plaintiff also seeks attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to the Settlement Agreement for preparation of this motion, in the sum of $2,561.65. Fees are sought for 2.5 hours preparing motion, 2 hours to review opposition and draft reply, and 1 hour at the hearing @ $450 per hour (5.5 hours at $450= $2,475). [Agemian Decl., paras. 13, 14, 16, 17]. Costs are sought for a $61.65 filing fee and a $25 LAconnect fee ($86.65). [Agemian Decl., paras. 15, 18]. This totals $2,561.65, as requested. These appear reasonable and will be awarded as requested. The total sought is $15,605.15. [Agemian Decl., para. 23]. The total of the payments, interest, fees and costs is this sum ($12,500, plus $62.50 and $481.00 in interest, plus fees and costs of $2,561.65).

This appears to provide substantial evidence upon which the court may enter judgment as requested. There is no opposition to this motion, so no challenge to this evidence. The motion is granted, and judgment is entered as requested.

RULING:

[No Opposition]

Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and Enter Judgment Pursuant to CCP section 664.6 is GRANTED. The Court finds that parties to pending litigation stipulated to the settlement of the case in a writing signed by the parties outside the presence of the court. Judgment is therefore entered in favor of plaintiff DEW Investments, LLC, and against defendants Randy Taylor and Reyna Taylor in accordance with the Settlement Agreement executed by the parties on February 24, 2020, in the sum of $12,500, plus interest on the sums due at the legal rate in the amount of $543.50.

The Court further finds that the Settlement Agreement provides that the prevailing party in a proceeding brought pursuant to CCP section 664.6 is entitled to attorney’s fees and costs of any such proceeding. The Court finds that plaintiff is the prevailing party and further finds the attorney’s fees related to this motion to be $2,561.65, [$2,561.65 requested], to be added to the judgment. [Total judgment $15,605.15].

GIVEN THE CORONAVIRUS CRISIS, AND TO PROMOTE APPROPRIATE SOCIAL DISTANCING, UNTIL FURTHER ORDERED, DEPARTMENT D IS ENCOURAGING AUDIO OR VIDEO APPEARANCES

Please make arrangements in advance if you wish to appear via LACourtConnect by visiting www.lacourt.org, and scheduling a remote appearance. Please note that LACourtConnect offers an audio-only appearance option at a current cost of $15.00 and a video appearance option at a cost of $23.00. Counsel and parties (including self-represented litigants) are encouraged not to personally appear, unless they have obtained advance permission of the Court. Anyone who appears in person for the hearing will be required to comply with strict social distancing measures, including, but not limited to, assigned seating, capacity limitations in the courtroom, designated waiting areas, and strictly enforced spacing in line to communicate with court staff. If no appearance is set up through LACourtConnect, or otherwise, then the Court will assume the parties are submitting on the tentative.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Dew Investments, LLC is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer AGEMIAN ANAHID