Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/07/2019 at 03:27:48 (UTC).

GABRIELA HERNANDEZ, ET AL VS CAL HYGIENE LLC

Case Summary

On 05/26/2017 GABRIELA HERNANDEZ filed a Labor - Other Labor lawsuit against CAL HYGIENE LLC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Van Nuys Courthouse East located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****5730

  • Filing Date:

    05/26/2017

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Other Labor

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Van Nuys Courthouse East

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

HERNANDEZ GABRIELA

CALLOWAY MICHAEL

Defendants

CAL HYGIENE LLC

DOES TO 25

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

MESSRELIAN HAROUT

Defendant Attorney

FINK KEITH ALLEN

 

Court Documents

Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

7/3/2018: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/03/2018
  • Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/03/2018
  • Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2018
  • at 09:30 AM in Department W; Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2018
  • Stipulation; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/14/2018
  • Notice; Filed by GABRIELA HERNANDEZ (Plaintiff); MICHAEL CALLOWAY (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department W; Case Management Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/22/2018
  • Case Management Statement; Filed by GABRIELA HERNANDEZ (Plaintiff); MICHAEL CALLOWAY (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/08/2018
  • at 00:00 AM in Department W; Unknown Event Type

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/15/2017
  • Answer; Filed by CAL HYGIENE LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/13/2017
  • at 08:30 AM in Department W; Case Management Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/17/2017
  • Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice; Filed by GABRIELA HERNANDEZ (Plaintiff); MICHAEL CALLOWAY (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/09/2017
  • Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/09/2017
  • Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2017
  • at 08:30 AM in Department W; Case Management Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/12/2017
  • Stipulation-Order; Filed by GABRIELA HERNANDEZ (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/18/2017
  • Case Management Statement; Filed by GABRIELA HERNANDEZ (Plaintiff); MICHAEL CALLOWAY (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/14/2017
  • Stipulation-Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/26/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by GABRIELA HERNANDEZ (Plaintiff); MICHAEL CALLOWAY (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/26/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/26/2017
  • Summons; Filed by GABRIELA HERNANDEZ (Plaintiff); MICHAEL CALLOWAY (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: LC105730    Hearing Date: August 18, 2020    Dept: W

hernandez, et al. v. cal hygiene, llc

order compelling payment by defendant, or in the alternative, to enter judgment against defendant cal hygiene

Date of Hearing: August 18, 2020 Trial Date: None set.

Department: W Case No.: LC105730

Moving Party: Plaintiffs Gabriela Hernandez and Michael Calloway

Responding Party: No opposition.

BACKGROUND

On May 26, 2017, Plaintiffs Michael Calloway and Gabriela Hernandez filed a complaint against Defendant CAL HYGIENE, LLC for failure to compensate for all hours worked, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to pay wages when employment ends, failure to provide pay/personnel records, failure to give rest/meal breaks, failure to reimburse for business expenses, violations of Labor Code section 558 and Business and Professions Code §17200 et seq.

After months of litigation, the parties reached a settlement. At the Mandatory Settlement Conference, the settlement amount was reduced to writing and the case was dismissed. Plaintiffs now move for an order compelling payment.

[Tentative] Ruling

Plaintiffs Gabriela Hernandez and Michael Calloway Motion for an Order Compelling Payment by Defendant Cal Hygiene LLC in the form of a judgment is GRANTED.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs Gabriela Hernandez and Michael Calloway move the court for an order enforcing the terms of the settlement. The settlement agreement required Defendant CAL HYGIENE, LLC to tender the total sum of $27,000 to Plaintiff Calloway with an initial down payment of $3,000 and $1,000 each month thereafter, in equal installments, in exchange for dismissal of this action. (See Exh. A.) The settlement agreement further required Defendant to tender the total sum of $55,000 to Plaintiff Gabriela Hernandez with an initial down payment of $5,000 and $2,500 each month thereafter, in equal installments, in exchange for dismissal of this action. (See Exh. A.)

As for Plaintiff Calloway, Defendant tendered an initial down payment of $3000.00 on July 30, 2018 then 11 total payments in installments of $1,000 through July 2019 in the aggregate amount of $11,000, before abruptly stopping payments in violation of the settlement agreement. For Plaintiff Hernandez, Defendant tendered an initial down payment of $5000.00 on July 30, 2018 then 11 total payments in installments of $2,500 through July 2019 in the aggregate amount of $27,500, before stopping payments in violation of the settlement agreement. As such, Defendant owes a balance of $13,000 to plaintiff Calloway and $22,500 to plaintiff Hernandez.

Plaintiffs move for an order an order compelling payment, or in the alternative, to enter judgment against Defendant pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 128 and 664.6. Although section 128 provides the court with the authority to compel obedience to its judgments, orders, and process, the court finds section 664.6 the relevant statute here.

Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 provides: “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 request for the trial court to retain jurisdiction under section 664.6 ‘must conform to the same three requirements which the Legislature and the courts have deemed necessary for section 664.6 enforcement of the settlement itself: the request must be made (1) during the pendency of the case, not after the case has been dismissed in its entirety, (2) by the parties themselves, and (3) either in a writing signed by the parties or orally before the court.’”  (Id. (quoting Wackeen v. Malis (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 429, 440).)  “The ‘request must be express, not implied from other language, and it must be clear and unambiguous.’”  (Id.)

Here, the Stipulation for Settlement (Exhibit A) was entered and signed by the parties on May 22, 2018, the same day the court entered dismissal. The Settlement contains a provision which states “[a]ll parties in the action hereby stipulate that the case, including any cross claims or actions, is settled … and ask the court: to dismiss the entire case as of this date and retain jurisdiction under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 to enforce the above terms of the settlement.” The Stipulation for Settlement is requested by the parties and in a signed writing to the court. The minute order for the same date indicates that the court dismissed the action, while retaining jurisdiction under Section 664.6. Moreover, Plaintiffs submit the declaration of their counsel, Harout Messrelian, who declares under penalty of perjury, Defendant abruptly stopped making payments in violation of the settlement agreement. (Messrelian Decl. ¶3.)

Based on the foregoing, the court finds Plaintiffs have met their burden in showing Defendant has failed to comply with the settlement agreement and the court has jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement.

Judgment shall be entered in favor of plaintiffs.