Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/24/2020 at 06:24:55 (UTC).

GREEN & MARKER VS ROBERT AZINIAN, ET AL.,

Case Summary

On 05/18/2017 GREEN MARKER filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against ROBERT AZINIAN, . This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is MITCHELL L. BECKLOFF. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.

Case Details Parties Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7543

  • Filing Date:

    05/18/2017

  • 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

Presiding Judge

MITCHELL L. BECKLOFF

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

ARROYO BENIGNO

GREEN & MARKER

Defendants

DEMIRJIAN ENTERPRISES L.P.

PARK LANE BURGERS

AZINIAN KARINE

AZINIAN CATYANA

15300 SUTTON LLC

AZINIAN ROBERT

ARG-ARM LENDING LLC

JOHNNY BALBOA INC.

JR/HB DEVELOPMENT GROUP LLC

ROCNEVA INC.

CRISTCAT HOLLYWOOD INC.

TRE ROSA CORP.

JOHNNY RIVER INC.

CRISTCAT WASHINGTON PACIFIC INC.

AZINIAN ARTURO

CRISTCAT CALABASAS INC.

THE CRISTCAT GROUP INC.

JOHNNY BURBANK INC.

17 More Parties Available

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

MAGALLANES DAYTON

MARKER RICHARD A.

Defendant Attorney

HESS MATTHEW E.

Court Documents

Court documents are not available for this case.

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/21/2018
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department M; Unknown Event Type - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2018
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department M; Case Management Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2018
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by GREEN & MARKER (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2018
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal (WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS TO ENTIRE ACTION OF ALL PARTIES AND ALL CAUSES OF ACTION ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2018
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department M; Non-Appearance Case Review - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2018
  • Docketat 09:00 am in Department WEM, Mitchell L. Beckloff, Presiding; Non-Appearance (Case Review) - Completed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2018
  • DocketNotice-Settlement ((CCP 664.6) ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2018
  • DocketNotice of Settlement; Filed by GREEN & MARKER (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2018
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department M; Case Management Conference (Conference-Case Management; Off Calendar) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2018
  • Docketat 08:30 am in Department WEM, Mitchell L. Beckloff, Presiding; Conference-Case Management (AND POS) - Off Calendar

    Read MoreRead Less
56 More Docket Entries
  • 10/17/2017
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department M; Case Management Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/17/2017
  • Docketat 08:30 am in Department WEM, Mitchell L. Beckloff, Presiding; Conference-Case Management (COURT DARK ON 9/15/17) - Status conference is held & cont.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2017
  • DocketStatement-Case Management; Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2017
  • DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by ROBERT AZINIAN (Defendant); KARINE AZINIAN (Defendant); CHRISTINA AZINIAN (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/20/2017
  • DocketNotice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/20/2017
  • DocketNOTICE OF CONTINUANCE; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/18/2017
  • DocketSummons Filed; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/18/2017
  • DocketComplaint Filed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/18/2017
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/18/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by GREEN & MARKER (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: SC127543    Hearing Date: March 19, 2021    Dept: M

CASE NAME: Green & Marker v. Robert Azinian, et al.

CASE NUMBER: SC127543

MOTION: Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement (unopposed)

HEARING DATE: 3/19/2021

Background

On May 18, 2017, Plaintiff Green & Marker filed a suit against Robert Azinian and various other defendants for breach of contract, account stated, and quantum meruit. (See 05/18/2017 Compl.) This action arose out of Defendants alleged failure to pay legal fees. Plaintiff dismissed several defendants and filed a first amended complaint on December 14, 2017, for breach of contract, account stated, quantum meruit, intentional misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation. Plaintiff provided the court with notice of a settlement. (See 04/25/2018 Notice.) On May 10, 2018, Plaintiff request that the Clerk dismiss this action without prejudice as to all parties. The Clerk entered the dismissal on the same date. (See 05/10/2018 Request.)

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: “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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6.) “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.” (Id.)

In hearing a section 664.6 motion, the trial court may receive evidence, determine disputed facts, and enter terms of a settlement agreement as a judgment. (Bowers v. Raymond J. Lucia Companies, Inc. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 724, 732.) The Court may also receive oral testimony in addition to declarations. (Kohn v. Jaymar-Ruby, Inc. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1530, 1533.) The Court may interpret the terms and conditions to settlement (Fiore v. Alvord (1985) 182 Cal.App.3d 561, 566), but the Court may not create material terms of a settlement, as opposed to deciding what terms the parties themselves have previously agreed upon (Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 810).

Strict compliance with the statutory requirements is necessary before a court can enforce a settlement agreement under this statute. (Sully-Miller Contracting Co. v. Gledson/Cashman Construction, Inc. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 30, 37.) The party seeking to enforce a settlement “must first establish the agreement at issue was set forth ‘in a writing signed by the parties’ (§ 664.6) or was made orally before the court. [Citation.]” (Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 299, 304.) The settlement must include the signatures of the parties seeking to enforce the agreement, and against whom enforcement is sought. (J.B.B. Investment Partners, Ltd. v. Fair (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 974, 985.) “Parties” under section 664.6 means the litigants themselves, and not their attorneys, must expressly consent to settlement. (Levy v. Superior Court (1995) 10 Cal.4th 578, 586.)

Analysis

Plaintiff Green & Marker argues that it can seek to enforce the settlement agreement between itself and Defendants because the parties entered into a written settlement agreement outside of the presence of the court. This motion is unopposed. Plaintiff seeks an ­­­order enforcing the terms of the settlement agreement against all Defendants as well as judgment in favor of Plaintiff against Defendants, each of them, in the principal sum of $48,000.00. Plaintiff also seeks attorney's fees and costs of $2,564.20 for being required to bring this motion to enforce the settlement agreement.

“A written settlement agreement is not enforceable under section 664.6 unless it is signed by all of the parties to the agreement, not merely the parties against whom the agreement is sought to be enforced. (Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel Sully-Miller Contracting Co. v. Gledson/Cashman Construction, Inc.

Here, the settlement agreement is signed by Plaintiff Green & Marker by Richard A. Marker and only Defendant Robert Azinian. (See Ex. A at p. 5.) The agreement claims that Azinian is signing on behalf of all other defendants in case no. SC127543. However, this is not permitted. Plaintiff has not presented evidence that the other Defendants signed the settlement agreement. Moreover, Plaintiff is a law firm representing itself and law firms cannot obtain attorney’s fees for their own self-representation. (See Trope v. Katz (1995) 11 Cal. 4th 274, 280; Gorman v. Tassajara Dev. Corp. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 44, 93.) Therefore, the motion is DENIED. 
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where TRE ROSA CORP. is a litigant

Latest cases where CRISTCAT HOLLYWOOD INC is a litigant

Latest cases where GREEN & MARKER A CALIFORNIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP is a litigant