This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/30/2019 at 19:06:43 (UTC).

KATRIN YERMIAN VS. DION ROSTAMIAN, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 02/02/2018 KATRIN YERMIAN filed a Property - Other Property Fraud lawsuit against DION ROSTAMIAN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Burbank Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is BENNY C. OSORIO. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7721

  • Filing Date:

    02/02/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Property Fraud

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

BENNY C. OSORIO

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

YERMIAN KATRIN

Defendants

ROSTAMIAN DION

XPRESS CREDIT REPAIR INC.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

SHAGHZO & SHAGHZO

SHAGHZO ARMEN

Defendant Attorneys

VERDI LAW GROUP PC

VERDI ALFRED JOSEPH

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

8/22/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

Ex Parte Application - Ex Parte Application For an Order Continuing Trial and Trial Related Deadlines

2/13/2019: Ex Parte Application - Ex Parte Application For an Order Continuing Trial and Trial Related Deadlines

Minute Order - Minute Order (Final Status Conference; Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application for...)

2/13/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Final Status Conference; Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application for...)

Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

4/6/2018: Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

11/19/2018: Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

Summons

2/2/2018: Summons

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: OSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv

2/2/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: OSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv

Notice of Case Management Conference

2/2/2018: Notice of Case Management Conference

Civil Case Cover Sheet

2/2/2018: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Complaint filed-Summons Issued

2/2/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Complaint filed-Summons Issued

Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint

3/28/2018: Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

4/13/2018: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2018-04-18 00:00:00

4/18/2018: Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2018-04-18 00:00:00

Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint

4/27/2018: Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint

Answer

5/2/2018: Answer

Case Management Statement

6/12/2018: Case Management Statement

Application

6/20/2018: Application

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Notice of Application

6/20/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Notice of Application

18 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/06/2020
  • Hearing01/06/2020 at 09:30 AM in Department B at 300 East Olive, Burbank, CA 91502; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/02/2020
  • Hearing01/02/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department B at 300 East Olive, Burbank, CA 91502; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/03/2019
  • Docketat 09:30 AM in Department B; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/22/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department B; Final Status Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/22/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/25/2019
  • Docketat 09:30 AM in Department B; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/13/2019
  • Docketat 08:34 AM in Department B; Final Status Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/13/2019
  • DocketEx Parte Application (For an Order Continuing Trial and Trial Related Deadlines); Filed by Katrin Yermian (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/13/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Final Status Conference; Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application for...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/19/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
27 More Docket Entries
  • 04/13/2018
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Katrin Yermian (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/06/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/06/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2018
  • DocketProof of Service of Summons and Complaint; Filed by Katrin Yermian (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2018
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department B; Unknown Event Type

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/02/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Katrin Yermian (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/02/2018
  • DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by Katrin Yermian (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/02/2018
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Katrin Yermian (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/02/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/02/2018
  • DocketOSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: EC067721    Hearing Date: September 18, 2020    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

katrin yermian,

Plaintiff,

v.

dion rostamian, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: EC067721

Hearing Date: September 18, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion to enforce the settlement agreement and release pursuant to ccp §664.6

BACKGROUND

A. Allegations of the Complaint

Plaintiff Katrin Yermian (“Plaintiff”) alleges that she went to Defendant Xpress Credit Repair Inc. (“Xpress”) to inquire about obtaining a student loan for her son’s tuition. She alleges she talked to Defendant Dion Rostamian (“Rostamian”), who told her that she would not need a student loan, but should instead increase her credit limits for all of her credit cards and withdraw all cash available on her cards as cash advances. Defendants sought a fee of 15% of the total amount of cash advances withdrawn. Once all of the credit line increases were approved, Rostamian went with Plaintiff to the bank to make the cash advance withdrawals. She alleges Rostamian took possession of her withdrawn funds in the amount of $20,000 and induced her to give a 15% fee and her username and password for her accounts. Thereafter, her credit lines were reduced and her accounts were closed as a result of the credit line increases and immediate withdrawal of funds. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are still in possession of her funds.

The complaint, filed February 2, 2018, alleges causes of action for: (1) fraud; (2) violation of Business & Professions Code, §17200; (3) breach of oral contract; and (4) money had and received.

B. Relevant Background and Motion on Calendar

On December 30, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Conditional Settlement of the Entire Case, stating that the settlement agreement conditions dismissal of the matter on a satisfactory completion of specified terms that are not to be performed within 45 days of the date of settlement and that the request for dismissal will be filed no later than December 1, 2021.

On March 16, 2020, Plaintiff requested a dismissal with prejudice as to the complaint, but that the Court retain jurisdiction under CCP §664.6. The Court rejected the request, stating that the request must be made by stipulation and order.

On March 17, 2020, the Court held a hearing on the OSC re Dismissal (Settlement) where Plaintiff’s counsel requested that the Court retain jurisdiction over the case, but the Court advised Plaintiff to submit a stipulation and order pursuant to CCP §664.6 for the Court’s review and signature.

On April 24, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement and Release pursuant to CCP §664.6. The Court is not in receipt of an opposition brief.

DISCUSSION

1. The Court’s Jurisdiction

The request to retain jurisdiction 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 writing signed by the parties, or orally before the Court. (Wackeen, 97 Cal. App. 4th at 440.) As stated in Wackeen:

[I]n order for a court to assert such continuing jurisdiction, the parties' request for retention of jurisdiction must satisfy the same formalities that courts and the Legislature have imposed generally on section 664.6 motions and the settlement agreements such motions seek to enforce. Like section 664.6 motions themselves, requests for retention of jurisdiction must be made prior to a dismissal of the suit. Moreover, like the settlement agreement itself, the request must be made orally before the court or in a signed writing, and it must be made by the parties, not by their attorneys, spouses or other such agents. If, after a suit has been dismissed, a party brings a section 664.6 motion for a judgment on a settlement agreement but cannot present to the court a request for retention of jurisdiction that meets all of these requirements, then enforcement of the agreement must be left to a separate lawsuit.

(Wackeen v. Malis requested

The action has not yet been dismissed. As noted above, Plaintiff’s request for dismissal was rejected. Further, an OSC re Dismissal (Settlement) still remains on calendar for October 7, 2020.

Moreover, the parties have not requested that the Court accept jurisdiction of the case pursuant to CCP §664.6 by submitting a stipulation and order with the Court. As stated in the clerk’s rejection of the request for dismissal and the Court’s March 17, 2020 minute order, Plaintiff’s counsel was advised to submit a stipulation and order for the Court’s review and signature for it to retain jurisdiction of the matter pursuant to section 664.6.

Plaintiff relies on section 3.4 of the Settlement Agreement for the Court’s jurisdiction. (Mot. at Ex. 1 [Settlement Agreement at p.2, §3.4].) Section 3.4 states that the trial court retains jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement per CCP §664.6. However, the document is signed by the parties only and not by the Court.

Nevertheless, as the action has not been dismissed, the Court still retains jurisdiction of the matter. As such, the Court will consider the merits of this motion.

2. Merits of Motion

CCP §664.6 authorizes the Court to enforce a settlement agreement in limited, specific circumstances. Section 664.6 was enacted to provide a summary procedure for specifically enforcing a settlement contract without the need for a new lawsuit. (Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal. App. 4th 793, 810.) 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. (Id.)

The terms of the Settlement Agreement entered by Plaintiff Katrin Yermian and Defendants Dion Rostamian and Credit Repair, Inc. (signed by Rostamian) include:

· 3.1. Defendant agrees to settle the case by paying Plaintiff the total sum of $10,000.

· 3.2. The payments shall be made by cashier’s check payable to Ara Aroustamian Client Trust Account by making 3 payments of $1,700 from 1/2/2020 to 3/2/2020, then 19 monthly payments of $250 beginning 4/2/2020, and finally 1 payment of $150 on 11/2/2021.

· 3.3. Plaintiff shall file a dismissal of the case with prejudice.

· 3.5. In the event of Defendant’s default of the payment plan, Plaintiff may seek entry of judgment against Defendant for $25,000, less credit for payments made to date, if Defendant fails to cure the default within 5 days after written notice.

Plaintiff argues that after the initial settlement payment of $1,700, Defendant has failed to comply with the remaining terms of the agreement in section 3. (Aroustamian Decl., ¶6.) Despite making inquiries as to the remaining payments, Defendant failed to perform the terms of the Settlement Agreement. (Id., ¶5.)

As such, Plaintiff seeks to enforce the Settlement Agreement and request entry of judgment against Defendant in the amount of $23,300 (which is $25,000 minus $1,700 credit).

Based on the terms of the Settlement Agreement and Defendants’ lack of opposition to the motion, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement and enters judgment against Defendants in the amount of $23,300.00.

Plaintiff shall provide notice of this order.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer SHAGHZO ARMEN .