This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/03/2019 at 03:47:49 (UTC).

LOURDES AVILA VS LEYVA'S MEXICAN FOODS INC ET AL

Case Summary

On 02/22/2017 LOURDES AVILA filed a Labor - Wrongful Termination lawsuit against LEYVA'S MEXICAN FOODS INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is DALILA CORRAL LYONS. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****1520

  • Filing Date:

    02/22/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Wrongful Termination

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

DALILA CORRAL LYONS

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

AVILA LOURDES

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 THROUGH 20

LEYVA'S MEXICAN FOODS INC.

LEYVA OCTAVIANO

LEYVA [DOE 1] ANA MARIA

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

ELIHU KAVEH S. ESQ.

ELIHU KAVEH S ESQ.

Defendant Attorney

BIGGINS DOUGLAS CHADWICK

 

Court Documents

NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES

1/9/2018: NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES

Minute Order

5/17/2018: Minute Order

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY?CIVIL (WITHOUT COURT ORDER)

8/27/2018: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY?CIVIL (WITHOUT COURT ORDER)

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY?CIVIL (WITHOUT COURT ORDER)

8/27/2018: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY?CIVIL (WITHOUT COURT ORDER)

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

9/14/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

Minute Order

9/14/2018: Minute Order

Status Report

3/21/2019: Status Report

Declaration

3/28/2019: Declaration

Unknown

4/3/2019: Unknown

Motion in Limine

5/29/2019: Motion in Limine

Motion in Limine

5/29/2019: Motion in Limine

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

3/7/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

DECLARATION OF DUE DILIGENCE

3/7/2017: DECLARATION OF DUE DILIGENCE

Unknown

3/7/2017: Unknown

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

4/18/2017: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

6/6/2017: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

Unknown

10/3/2017: Unknown

Minute Order

10/18/2017: Minute Order

27 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/31/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 20, Dalila Corral Lyons, Presiding; Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC) - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/29/2019
  • Motion in Limine (#2 re: government assistance); Filed by Lourdes Avila (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/29/2019
  • Motion in Limine (#3 re: other lawsuits); Filed by Lourdes Avila (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/29/2019
  • Motion in Limine (#1 - re: immigration status); Filed by Lourdes Avila (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2019
  • Notice (regarding continuance of mandatory settlement conference); Filed by Lourdes Avila (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2019
  • at 3:25 PM in Department 20, Dalila Corral Lyons, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2019
  • Minute Order ( (COURT ORDER - REGARDING CONTINUANCE OF MANDATORY SETTLEMENT C...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/09/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 24; Order to Show Cause Re: (Sanctions for Plaintiff's Failure to File Settlement Report) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/09/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions for Plaintiff's Failure to ...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/03/2019
  • at 4:24 PM in Department 20, Dalila Corral Lyons, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
62 More Docket Entries
  • 04/18/2017
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/07/2017
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Lourdes Avila (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/07/2017
  • Proof of Service by 1st Class Mail

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/07/2017
  • DECLARATION OF DUE DILIGENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/07/2017
  • Declaration re: Due Diligence; Filed by Lourdes Avila (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/07/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/07/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Lourdes Avila (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/22/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Lourdes Avila (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/22/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: 1. WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/22/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC651520    Hearing Date: January 21, 2020    Dept: 24

Plaintiff Loudres Avila’s motion to enter judgment is GRANTED.

On February 22, 2017, Plaintiff Loudres Avila filed the instant employment suit against Defendants Leyva’s Mexican Foods Inc., and Octaviano Leyva. Plaintiff sued Defendants for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, retaliation in violation of the Labor Code, as well as failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to provide itemized wage statements, failure to permit inspection of personnel and payroll records, waiting time penalties, and unfair competition under the California Business and Professions Code. On September 26, 2018, Plaintiff amended her complaint to substitute Doe 1 for Ana Maria Leyva.

The Parties reached a settlement on July 8, 2019. The parties stipulated to settlement on the record before this Court. The Court retained jurisdiction pursuant to CCP section 664.6.

On October 30, 2019, Plaintiff moved to enter judgment. (CCP § 664.6.) On January 6, 2020, Defendants filed an opposition. On January 13, 2020, Plaintiff filed a reply.

Legal Standard

Pursuant to CCP 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.”

“Because of its summary nature, strict compliance with the requirements of section 664.6 is prerequisite to invoking the power of the court to impose a settlement agreement.” (Sully-Miller Contracting Co. v. Gledson/Cashman Construction, Inc. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 30, 37; Critzer v. Enos (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1262.) In ruling on a motion under § 664.6, the trial judge may receive oral testimony, or may determine the motion upon declarations alone. (Corkland v. Boscoe (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 989, 994.) Where the agreement was reached at a court hearing, the court can resolve the dispute on the basis of its own notes or recollection of what was agreed to (as well as any transcripts of the proceedings). (Richardson v. Richardson (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 91, 97.)

Discussion

Here, Plaintiff has demonstrated the necessary elements for entry of judgment pursuant to CCP section 664.6. The parties do not dispute that they stipulated orally before the court for the settlement of the suit. The terms of the settlement are reflected in the notes of the court reporter. The parties unambiguously agreed to a $35,000.00 total settlement, with an initial payment of $5,000.00 due by August 8, 2019, and $2,500.00 to be paid on the first of every month thereafter for the remaining balance. (Panosian Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. 1.) Further, the Court’s own record indicates a retention of jurisdiction per section 664.6.

Defendants argue that they are not in breach. This is irrelevant to the instant motion. The statutory language makes it clear that a party moving for the entry of judgment pursuant to a settlement under CCP section 664.6 need not establish a breach of contract to support relief under the statute. (Hines v. Lukes (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1185.)

Plaintiff argues that they are entitled to fees and costs associated with this motion. Plaintiff cites an inapplicable statute for this proposition. (CCP § 685.040.) This provision states in full:

The judgment creditor is entitled to the reasonable and necessary costs of enforcing a judgment. Attorney’s fees incurred in enforcing a judgment are not included in costs collectible under this title unless otherwise provided by law. Attorney’s fees incurred in enforcing a judgment are included as costs collectible under this title if the underlying judgment includes an award of attorney’s fees to the judgment creditor pursuant to subparagraph (A) of paragraph (10) of subdivision (a) of Section 1033.5.

(Emphasis Added.)

There are several reasons why this statute does not apply. First, a CCP section 664.6 motion is not a motion to enforce a judgment. By its own terms, the Court is only authorized to enter judgment, not enforce a judgment. Second, the cited statute only applies to enforcement made under that title. CCP section 664.6 (title 8) is under a separate title than CCP section 685.040 (title 9). Third, the statute explicitly states that the underlying judgment needs to include an award of attorneys’ fees. The settlement did not include an award of attorneys’ fees. In fact, the agreement explicitly excluded attorneys’ fees. (Panosian Decl., Ex. 1, at 5:26-6:5.)

On that same note, Plaintiff requests that the court enforce the $27,500 judgment immediately upon entry of judgment. The statute does not authorize the Court to do anything beyond enter judgment. (CCP § 664.6.)

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. Judgment will be entered pursuant to the terms of the settlement, less credits acknowledged. Moving party is ordered to give notice.