On 05/21/2018 a Contract - Other Contract case was filed by DR PHILOMENA OBOH against DR KATRINA EAGILEN in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.
Disposed - Dismissed
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
JAMES C. CHALFANT
OBOH PHILOMENA DR. ON BEHALF OF
DOES 1 TO 10
CALIFORNIA ORAL HEALTH & WELLNESS
9/10/2018: EVIDENTIARY OBJECTION TO DECLARATION OF DEFENDANT KATRINA EAGILEN SUPPORTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ORDER REQUIRING POSTING OF SECURITY.
9/10/2018: PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR: ORDER REQUIRING POSTING OF SECURITY BOND. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES.
9/24/2018: DEFENDANT KATRINA EAGILEN'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER CONTINUING THE HEARING DATE ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ORDER REQULRNG POSTING OF SECURITY BOND, PURSUANT TO CORPORATIONS CODE SECTION 800(C
9/25/2018: Minute Order
9/26/2018: NOTICE OF RULING RE: DELENDANT'S MOTION FOR: ORDER REQUIRING POSTING OF SECURITY BOND.
10/10/2018: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment
10/29/2018: Notice of Motion
11/14/2018: Request for Judicial Notice
11/29/2018: Notice of Rejection - Fax Filing
12/5/2018: Minute Order
1/14/2019: Notice of Motion
5/23/2018: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING
5/23/2018: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
5/21/2018: VERIFIED COMPLAINT DERIVATIVE CLAIMS FOR: 1 BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY; ETC
at 08:30 AM in Department 58; Conference (ReMediation Setting) - HeldRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 58; Status Conference - HeldRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Status Conference; Conference Re: Mediation Setting)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Notice of Settlement; Filed by Katrina Eagilen (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
at 1:30 PM in Department 85, James C. Chalfant, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: (Receivership) - HeldRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Receivership)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Declaration (DECLARATION O FARMAND J. JAAFARI); Filed by Katrina Eagilen (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Response (RE. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE. APPOINTMENT OF LIMITED RECEIVER OR PROVISIONAL DIRECTOR); Filed by Philomena Oboh (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
at 09:30 AM in Department 85, James C. Chalfant, Presiding; Hearing on Motion - Other (Appointment of a Provisional Director to Take Charge and Conduct Equitable Windup of COHW) - HeldRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 58; Order to Show Cause Re: (Receivership) - Held - ContinuedRead MoreRead Less
Minute OrderRead MoreRead Less
Minute order entered: 2018-05-30 00:00:00; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Ex-Parte Application; Filed by Philomena Oboh (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCERead MoreRead Less
OSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARINGRead MoreRead Less
Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
VERIFIED COMPLAINT DERIVATIVE CLAIMS FOR: 1 BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY; ETCRead MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by Philomena Oboh (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC707003 Hearing Date: January 09, 2020 Dept: 58
Judge John P. Doyle
Hearing Date: January 9, 2020
Case Name: Dr. Philomena Oboh v. Dr. Katrina Eagilen, et al.
Case No.: BC707003
Motion: Motion to Enforce Settlement
Moving Party: Plaintiff Philomena Oboh
Opposing Party: Defendant Katrina Eagilen
Tentative Ruling: The Motion is granted in part.
Plaintiff Oboh moves to enforce the parties’ settlement agreement pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 664.6.
The Court is authorized to enter judgment pursuant to the stipulated settlement. (Code Civ. Proc. § 664.6.) In reviewing a motion to enforce a settlement, the Court determines “whether the parties entered into a valid and binding settlement.” (Hines v. Lukes (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1182.) “A settlement is enforceable under section 664.6 only if the parties agreed to all material settlement terms. [Citations.] The court ruling on the motion may consider the parties’ declarations and other evidence in deciding what terms the parties agreed to, and the court’s factual findings in this regard are reviewed under the substantial evidence standard. [Citations.] If the court determines that the parties entered into an enforceable settlement, it should grant the motion and enter a formal judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.” (Id. at pp. 1182-1183; see also Osumi v. Sutton (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1355, 1357 [“Strong public policy in favor of the settlement of civil cases gives the trial court, which approves the settlement, the power to enforce it”].)
Plaintiff contends, “the court should enter an order enforcing the parties memorandum of 14 settlement agreement (Exhibit 1) with order directing that the Defendant provide the information 16 and financial records requested by the Plaintiff, within 5 days as provided on paragraph 6 (e) of the 16 parties settlement agreement Exhibit 1. If the Defendant fails to fully comply with the court order 17 within the 5 days of the order, the Plaintiff shall be entitled to immediate distribution of the 40% of is the gross settlement funds without any adjustment required to determine the net remaining balance of 19 COHW funds.”
Defendant Eagilen argues the Court only has the power to require that the parties pursue any and all disputes via mediation as stated in the subject settlement agreement.
Defendant is incorrect. Mediation is required only as to “any dispute regarding the propriety and allocation of any cost, withdrawal, and/or expenditure claimed to be a COHW business expense
and or/transaction.” (Egbase Decl., Exhibit 1 ¶ 5(c).)
Further, the subject settlement agreement allows the Court to enforce its terms per Code Civ. Proc. § 664.6 (id., Exhibit 1 ¶¶ 8-9), and provides,
The parties through counsels are currently conferring, and shall continue to confer to review the accounting of COHW cost, withdrawals, and expenditures to determine the propriety and allocation of any cost, withdrawal, and/or expenditure claimed to be a COHW business expense and or/transaction, in order to determine whether any adjustment is required to the net remaining balance of COHW funds. Either of the parties at her own expense, may retain a forensic accountant to assist with the review of the accounting of COHW cost, withdrawals, and expenditure. The parties shall promptly surrender all COWH financial records required by either of the parties to accomplish the review of the accounting of COHW cost, withdrawals, and expenditure, within 5 days, upon request of either of the parties.
(id., Exhibit 1 ¶ 6(e) (emphasis added)).
Because it is undisputed that there exists a valid settlement agreement between the parties and that the Court has retained jurisdiction, the Court enters judgment pursuant to the parties’ settlement agreement. (Code Civ. Proc. § 664.6.)
Further, because Defendant has not provided the required records to determine the final amount from which funds will be distributed to the parties, the Court enters an order requiring that the requested records be tendered to Plaintiff within five days. Should Defendant fail to comply with this requirement, the issue of the amount to be distributed to the parties may be pursued via mediation as required by the subject settlement agreement.
Pursuant to the subject settlement agreement, the Court awards Plaintiff’s requested attorneys’ fees in the amount of $3,210.00.