This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/05/2019 at 01:51:05 (UTC).

DR PHILOMENA OBOH VS DR KATRINA EAGILEN ET AL

Case Summary

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.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7003

  • Filing Date:

    05/21/2018

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

JAMES C. CHALFANT

 

Party Details

Petitioners and Plaintiffs

OBOH PHILOMENA DR. ON BEHALF OF

OBOH PHILOMENA

Respondents and Defendants

DOES 1 TO 10

CALIFORNIA ORAL HEALTH & WELLNESS

EAGILEN KATRINA

Plaintiff and Cross Defendant

OBOH PHILOMENA

 

Court Documents

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTION TO DECLARATION OF DEFENDANT KATRINA EAGILEN SUPPORTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ORDER REQUIRING POSTING OF SECURITY.

9/10/2018: EVIDENTIARY OBJECTION TO DECLARATION OF DEFENDANT KATRINA EAGILEN SUPPORTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ORDER REQUIRING POSTING OF SECURITY.

PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR: ORDER REQUIRING POSTING OF SECURITY BOND. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES.

9/10/2018: PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR: ORDER REQUIRING POSTING OF SECURITY BOND. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES.

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

9/24/2018: 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

Minute Order

9/25/2018: Minute Order

NOTICE OF RULING RE: DELENDANT'S MOTION FOR: ORDER REQUIRING POSTING OF SECURITY BOND.

9/26/2018: NOTICE OF RULING RE: DELENDANT'S MOTION FOR: ORDER REQUIRING POSTING OF SECURITY BOND.

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

10/10/2018: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Notice of Motion

10/29/2018: Notice of Motion

Request for Judicial Notice

11/14/2018: Request for Judicial Notice

Reply

11/20/2018: Reply

Notice

11/26/2018: Notice

Notice of Rejection - Fax Filing

11/29/2018: Notice of Rejection - Fax Filing

Minute Order

12/5/2018: Minute Order

Notice of Motion

1/14/2019: Notice of Motion

Declaration

3/4/2019: Declaration

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

5/23/2018: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

5/23/2018: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

SUMMONS

5/21/2018: SUMMONS

VERIFIED COMPLAINT DERIVATIVE CLAIMS FOR: 1 BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY; ETC

5/21/2018: VERIFIED COMPLAINT DERIVATIVE CLAIMS FOR: 1 BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY; ETC

47 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/05/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 58; Conference (ReMediation Setting) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 58; Status Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Status Conference; Conference Re: Mediation Setting)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2019
  • Notice of Settlement; Filed by Katrina Eagilen (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/07/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 85, James C. Chalfant, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: (Receivership) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/07/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Receivership)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/06/2019
  • Declaration (DECLARATION O FARMAND J. JAAFARI); Filed by Katrina Eagilen (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/06/2019
  • Response (RE. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE. APPOINTMENT OF LIMITED RECEIVER OR PROVISIONAL DIRECTOR); Filed by Philomena Oboh (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2019
  • 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) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 58; Order to Show Cause Re: (Receivership) - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
84 More Docket Entries
  • 05/30/2018
  • Minute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/30/2018
  • Minute order entered: 2018-05-30 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/30/2018
  • Ex-Parte Application; Filed by Philomena Oboh (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2018
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2018
  • OSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2018
  • ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2018
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/21/2018
  • VERIFIED COMPLAINT DERIVATIVE CLAIMS FOR: 1 BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/21/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by Philomena Oboh (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/21/2018
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC707003    Hearing Date: January 09, 2020    Dept: 58

Judge John P. Doyle

Department 58


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.