Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC682180    Hearing Date: February 06, 2020    Dept: 37

HEARING DATE: February 6, 2020

CASE NUMBER: BC682180

CASE NAME: Karla Barrera v. Hooman Chevrolet of Culver City, et al.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Karla Barrera

OPPOSING PARTY: Defendants, Hooman Chevrolet of Culver City, et al.

TRIAL DATE: None, Notice of Unconditional Settlement June 14, 2019

PROOF OF SERVICE: OK

MOTION: Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Settlement

OPPOSITION: None, as of February 3, 2020

REPLY: N/A

TENTATIVE: Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. Judgment is awarded to Plaintiff in the amount of $30,250.00 against Defendants. Plaintiff is to provide notice and prepare a judgment.

Background

This is a wrongful termination action arising out of Plaintiff, Karla Barrera (“Plaintiff”)’s employment with Defendants, Hooman Chevrolet of Culver City (“Hooman”) and Nissani Brothers (“Nissani”), (together, “Defendants”). Plaintiff alleges that she began working for Defendants in January 2017 in the Guest Relations Department and was supervised by “Oscar.” Immediately after she began working for Defendants, Oscar allegedly began sexually harassing Plaintiff and subjecting her to a hostile work environment by allegedly making unwanted advances, flirting with Plaintiff, and inappropriately touching Plaintiff, all on a daily basis. Plaintiff alleges that she complained of Oscar’s conduct to Defendants’ human resources department, but that she immediately received retaliation, which ultimately resulted in termination on July 12, 2017. Plaintiff also alleges that she did not receive appropriate rest periods and was not paid for unused vacation or for her wages upon termination.

Plaintiff’s operative Complaint, filed November 2, 2017, alleges 11 causes of action for: (1) wrongful termination in violation of the Fair Housing Employment Act (“FEHA”), (2) sexual harassment/hostile work environment in violation of the FEHA, (3) discrimination based upon sex/gender in violation of the FEHA, (4) retaliation in violation of the FEHA, (5) failure to take all reasonable steps to prevent harassment, discrimination and retaliation in violation of the FEHA, (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (7) violation of rest period law (Labor Code § 226.7, (8) violation of wage and hour laws – unpaid vacation (Labor Code § 227.3), (9) failure to pay wages (Labor Code §§ 201, 204, 207, 227.3), (10) violation of wage and hour laws – waiting time penalties (Labor code §§ 202, 203), and (11) unfair competition in violation of Business and Professions Code § 17200.

On June 17, 2019, Plaintiff filed a notice of settlement indicating that a settlement of the entire action had been reached on June 14, 2019. Plaintiff now moves the court for an order enforcing the settlement against Defendants pursuant to the Settlement Agreement signed on August 27, 2019. No opposition has been filed to the instant motion.

Discussion

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 664.6, “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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6.) The court must determine whether the settlement agreement is valid and binding. (Kohn v. Jaymar-Ruby (1994) 23 Cal. App. 4th 1530, 1533.) “In order to be enforceable pursuant to the summary procedures of section 664.6, a settlement agreement must either be entered into orally before a court … or must be in writing and signed by the parties.” (Weddington Prods., Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 810.) Courts will not set aside a valid settlement agreement absent fraud, undue influence, or excusable neglect. (Zamora v. Clayborn Contracting Group, Inc. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 249, 260; see also Hulsey v. Elsinore Parachute Center (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 333, 339; Fraters Glass & Paint Co. v. Southwestern Const. Co. (1930) 107 Cal.App.1, 6.)

Plaintiff submits a copy of the parties’ signed settlement agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) as Exhibits A-B to the Declaration of Timothy E. Kearns (“Kearns Decl.”) The Settlement Agreement provides that Defendants would pay Plaintiff $25,000. (Kearns Decl. ¶¶ 2-3, Exhibits A-B; Settlement Agreement ¶ 7.) This amount was to be paid within twenty-one (21) days after execution of the Settlement Agreement, and no further monetary promise is made as part of this release. (Id.) Further, Paragraph 1 of the Settlement Agreement provides that payment of this $25,000 amount is required and that failure to make this payment would give Plaintiff the right to seek enforcement of the Settlement Agreement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. (Kearns Decl. ¶¶ 2-3, Exhibits A-B.) According to the Kearns Declaration and attached exhibits, Plaintiff signed the Settlement Agreement on August 27, 2019 and Hooman Nissani signed the Settlement Agreement on behalf of Employer on September 23, 2019. (Kearns Decl. Exhibits A-B.)

According to Plaintiff, Defendants have yet to pay the $25,000 in settlement funds as of the date the instant motion was filed. (Motion, 2; Kearns Decl. ¶ 3.) Further, Kearns attests he demanded that Defendants’ counsel comply with the Settlement Agreement and pay the settlement funds by email on November 12, 2019, but that Defendants have refused to comply and pay the settlement funds to date. (Kearns Decl. ¶ 3, Exhibit C.) Defendants have not filed an opposition and do not demonstrate that they have complied with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Pursuant to paragraph 1 of the Settlement Agreement, Plaintiff seeks attorney fees and costs in the amount of $11,550 for this motion and the ex parte application to advance the hearing date.

Plaintiff’s evidence is sufficient to demonstrate the existence of a valid and enforceable settlement agreement and Defendants’ breach. The court therefore GRANTS the motion to enforce the settlement agreement under CCP 664.6. Because Plaintiff’s request for fees included time for an opposition and a reply that did not happen and because the ex parte application was not necessary to enforce the agreement, the court awards $5,250.00 in fees for 7.5 hours and AWARDS judgment in Plaintiff’s favor in the requested amount of $30,250.00.

Conclusion

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. Judgment is awarded to Plaintiff in the amount of $30,250.00 against Defendants. Plaintiff is to provide notice and prepare a judgment.