This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/18/2019 at 01:58:14 (UTC).

ELVA HOWARD VS. JULIA DOBBINS

Case Summary

On 03/19/2018 a Contract - Debt Collection case was filed by ELVA HOWARD against JULIA DOBBINS in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Torrance Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****2754

  • Filing Date:

    03/19/2018

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Debt Collection

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Torrance Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

STUART M. RICE

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Cross Defendants

HOWARD ELVA

DOES 1-10

Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

DOBBINS JULIA

DOES 1 THROUGH 25

 

Court Documents

Notice of Case Management Conference

3/19/2018: Notice of Case Management Conference

Legacy Document

3/19/2018: Legacy Document

Complaint

3/19/2018: Complaint

General Denial

4/17/2018: General Denial

Summons

4/17/2018: Summons

Legacy Document

5/23/2018: Legacy Document

Stipulation - No Order

7/5/2018: Stipulation - No Order

Substitution of Attorney

7/10/2018: Substitution of Attorney

Substitution of Attorney

7/25/2018: Substitution of Attorney

Case Management Statement

8/10/2018: Case Management Statement

Case Management Statement

8/10/2018: Case Management Statement

Motion to Compel

8/21/2018: Motion to Compel

Other -

8/21/2018: Other -

Notice

8/24/2018: Notice

Minute Order

9/7/2018: Minute Order

Notice of Continuance

9/11/2018: Notice of Continuance

Notice of Settlement

11/14/2018: Notice of Settlement

Minute Order

12/18/2018: Minute Order

13 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 12/18/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department B, Stuart M. Rice, Presiding; Case Management Conference - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/18/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department B, Stuart M. Rice, Presiding; Order to Show Cause - Hearing (reDismissal Date) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/18/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department B, Stuart M. Rice, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Trial Preference - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/18/2018
  • Minute Order ( (Order to Show Cause - Hearing re: Dismissal Date)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/29/2018
  • Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal (Settlement); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/14/2018
  • Notice of Settlement; Filed by Elva Howard (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/17/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department B; Unknown Event Type

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/13/2018
  • at 08:29 AM in Department B; (Motion for Leave; Continued by Court) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/13/2018
  • Minute order entered: 2018-09-13 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/11/2018
  • Notice of Continuance

    Read MoreRead Less
27 More Docket Entries
  • 04/17/2018
  • General Denial; Filed by Julia Dobbins (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2018
  • Cross-Compl fld - Summons Issued; Filed by Julia Dobbins (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2018
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Elva Howard (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/23/2018
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Elva Howard (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/21/2018
  • Notice-Pending Action; Filed by Elva Howard (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2018
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2018
  • Summons Issued; Filed by Elva Howard (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by Elva Howard (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2018
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2018
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: YC072754    Hearing Date: November 07, 2019    Dept: B

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Southwest District

Torrance Dept. B

ELVA HOWARD,

Plaintiff,

Case No.:

YC072754

vs.

[Tentative] RULING

JULIA DOBBINS,

Defendant.

Hearing Date: November 7, 2019

Moving Parties: Defendant and cross-complainant Julia Dobbins

Responding Party: Plaintiff Elva Howard

Motion to Enforce Stipulation Pursuant to CCP §664.6

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers.

RULING

The motion is DENIED as to having the clerk of the court execute a deed on the Pierce property in Washington.

The motion is GRANTED as to enforcing the agreement by ordering that the parties simultaneously exchange the secured promissory note and Pierce St. quitclaim deed at a mutually agreeable place and date within ten days.

BACKGROUND

On March 19, 2018, plaintiff Elva Howard filed a complaint against Julia Dobbins for fraud, promissory fraud, breach of the implied covenant of fair dealing, negligent misrepresentations, and equitable lien. Plaintiff alleges that she and defendant are sisters. In about 2012, defendant stated to plaintiff that she was going to retire to the State of Washington and would no longer be part of the restaurant La Cocina, at 4432-4438 182nd Street, Redondo Beach. Plaintiff and her immediate family took over La Cocina. They ran, operated, managed, and maintained La Cocina, and paid funds related to rent and insurance. They also claim title to the real property and have made substantial, ongoing payments to the real property owner, Nick Grmolyes, who is agreeable to provide title to plaintiff to the real property. Plaintiff agreed to pay $100,000 to take over La Cocina, of which $85,000 has been paid. $15,000 has not been paid because plaintiff discovered that La Cocina had been audited by the Board of Equalization, resulting in liability, which defendant failed to disclose. In September 2014, another audit arose with additional probable liability. There was also no worker’s compensation insurance, and a claim arose in October 2016. In November 2016, plaintiff paid $50,000 to plaintiff’s son-in-law to buy out his interest but defendant falsely claimed she paid it and that she is the owner of La Cocina.

On April 17, 2018, defendant filed a cross-complaint to quiet title.

On November 14, 2018, plaintiff filed a notice of conditional settlement.

On December 18, 2018, at the OSC hearing re dismissal, counsel represented that the case remained settled although all of the terms had not yet been completed. Upon agreement of the parties, the case was ordered dismissed. The court retained jurisdiction to make orders to enforce any and all terms of settlement, including judgment, pursuant to CCP §664.6.

LEGAL AUTHORITY

CCP §664.6 states: “If 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.”

“A trial court, when ruling on a section 664.6 motion, acts as a trier of fact. Section 664.6’s ‘express authorization for trial courts to determine whether a settlement has occurred is an implicit authorization for the trial court to interpret the terms and conditions to settlement.’” Skulnick v. Roberts Express, Inc. (1992) 2 Cal. App. 4th 884, 889 (citation omitted).

CCP §187 states: “When jurisdiction is, by the Constitution or this Code, or by any other statute, conferred on a Court or judicial officer, all the means necessary to carry it into effect are also given; and in the exercise of this jurisdiction, if the course of proceeding be not specifically pointed out by this Code or the statute, any suitable process or mode of proceeding may be adopted which may appear most conformable to the spirit of this Code.”

DISCUSSION

Defendant and cross-complainant Julia Dobbins requests that the court enforce the Stipulation for Settlement and Mutual Release of Claims entered into by the parties on October 18, 2018 and for the Clerk of the Court to execute a deed to the real property known as 911 Pierce Street, Steilacoom, Washington 98388 in the stead of plaintiff Elva Howard and for attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $3,471.54.

Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the parties agreed, in part, as follows:

1. Julia transfers Redondo property, Natalie property, and La Cocina to Elva forthwith upon presentation of documentation prepared by Elva.

2. Elva/Kenia/La Cocina will assume any and all existing liability associated with La Cocina and will indemnity and hold Julia harmless from same.

3. Julia to sign a new promissory note to Elva in the amount of $350,000 due in full on or before November 1, 2020 to be secured by a deed of trust on the Pierce St. and Arcories real property.

4. Elva will release her ownership interest in the Pierce St. real property except as a secured lienholder pursuant to para. 3. Julia’s attorneys to prepare the necessary deeds of trust to secure the $350,000 note on the Pierce St. and Arcories properties.

. . . .

9. Elva/Kenia’s attorney will prepare a quit claim deed and whatever other documentation is required to transfer the Redondo property to Elva, as well as the La Cocina restaurant and corporation. Julia agrees to forthwith assign over documents and files associated with La Cocina and corporation and to cooperate in the transfer of all associated licenses to consummate the transfer of ownership.

10. Julia shall pay $10,000 from the proceeds from the Natalie property. Elva and Kenia will waive any right to a further accounting or any additional funds form the rental proceeds of the Natalie property.

. . . .

On February 19, 2019, defense counsel sent to plaintiff’s counsel the original quitclaim deed on the Pierce St. property in Washington and the grant deed on the Redondo property as executed by Julia. He states in the letter that he is still awaiting the deed to the Natalie property as executed by Elva.

On June 4, 2019, defense counsel forwarded to plaintiff’s counsel a quitclaim deed to the Pierce St. property for Elva to sign, in compliance with para. 4 of the settlement agreement. The deed includes the language, “This Quitclaim Deed is expressly subject to a Deed of Trust in favor of Grantor.”

On July 10, 2019, in an email from defense counsel to plaintiff’s counsel, he states that he is not going to deliver the original promissory note (executed by Julia) unless and until plaintiff has fulfilled all of her obligations pursuant to para. 9 as well as delivering the deed to the Pierce St. property.

In opposition, plaintiff Elva contends that she has not refused to sign the Pierce St. quitclaim deed but that Julia has refused to provide her with a secured promissory note, which secures Julia’s obligation to repay the $350,000 loan. Elva contends that she is not willing to unilaterally provide the Pierce St. quitclaim deed. She is willing to provide the Pierce St. deed in conjunction with Julia signing the ABC forms that Elva’s counsel prepared and provided to Julia’s counsel and to simultaneously exchange the Pierce St. deed and the promissory note,

Defendant Julia acknowledges that she has not delivered the signed $350,000 promissory note to Elva, as required by para. 3. Elva has not delivered the signed quitclaim deed to the Pierce property to Julia, as required by para. 4. These two paragraphs are interrelated, and neither side has shown why the exchange should not be done simultaneously.

The motion is DENIED as to having the clerk of the court execute a deed on the Pierce property in Washington. The moving party defendant Julia has not fully complied with the settlement agreement by delivering the signed promissory note and Elva has not refused to execute the deed to the Pierce St. property.

The motion is GRANTED as to enforcing the agreement by ordering that the parties simultaneously exchange the secured promissory note and Pierce St. quitclaim deed at a mutually agreeable place and date within ten days.

As to ordering Julie to execute the ABC documents, that term is not subject to the motion.

The court denies any request for attorney’s fees.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of the ruling.