This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/02/2018 at 02:15:34 (UTC).

LUXXOTICA USA LLC VS. AGA & TITAN INC.

Case Summary

On 07/18/2017 LUXXOTICA USA LLC filed a Contract - Debt Collection lawsuit against AGA TITAN INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Glendale Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is RALPH C. HOFER. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.

Case Details Parties Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7016

  • Filing Date:

    07/18/2017

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Debt Collection

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Glendale Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

RALPH C. HOFER

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

LUXXOTICA USA LLC

Defendants

AGA & TITAN CO.

AGA & TITAN INC.

ECLIPSE EYEWEAR

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

GABA LAW CORPORATION

Court Documents

Court documents are not available for this case.

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/11/2018
  • Request for Dismissal (WITHOUT PREJUDICE WITH COURT RETAINING JURISDICTION PURSUANT TO CCP 664.6. ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2018
  • at 08:30 am in Department NCGD, Ralph C. Hofer, Presiding; Conference-Case Management - OSC held, order made

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2018
  • Stipulation (FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CCP SECTION 664.6 ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2018
  • Notice of Settlement (OF ENTIRE CASE-CONDITIONAL ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2018
  • Statement-Case Management; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/03/2018
  • Notice of Hearing; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/18/2017
  • at 08:30 am in Department NCGD, Ralph C. Hofer, Presiding; Conference-Case Management - Matter continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/07/2017
  • at 08:30 am in Department NCD, Ralph C. Hofer, Presiding; Order to Show Cause - Discharged

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/07/2017
  • at 08:30 am in Department NCGD, Ralph C. Hofer, Presiding; Order to Show Cause (RE SERVICE PURSUANT TO RULE3.110(b) CRC; 2) OSC RE SANCTIONSPURSUANT TO RULE 3.110(f) CRC;) - Discharged

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/30/2017
  • Statement-Case Management; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/27/2017
  • Declaration (OF RUDY GABA, JR. IN OPPOSITION TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/26/2017
  • Notice of Hearing; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/24/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/16/2017
  • at 08:30 am in Department NCGD, Ralph C. Hofer, Presiding; Order to Show Cause - Matter continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/06/2017
  • Declaration (OF RUDY GABA, JR. IN OPPOSITION TO OSC HEARING ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/18/2017
  • Summons Filed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/18/2017
  • Complaint filed-Summons Issued

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: EC067016    Hearing Date: December 06, 2019    Dept: NCD

TENTATIVE RULING

Calendar: 5

Date: 12/6/19

Case No: EC 067016

Case Name: Luxottica USA LLC v. AGA & Titan, Inc., et al.

MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

[CCP § 664.6]

Moving Party: Plaintiff Luxottica USA LLC

Responding Party: Defendant AGA & Titan Inc. aka AGA & Titan Co. dba

Eclipse Eyewear (No Opposition)

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Order setting aside dismissal of the action and entering judgment pursuant to the parties’ stipulation.

SUMMARY OF FACTS:

Plaintiff Luxottica USA LLC filed this action alleging that it entered into a written agreement with defendant AGA & Titan Inc. aka AGA & Titan Co. dba Eclipse Eyewear pursuant to which plaintiff would provide goods to defendant. Plaintiff alleges that it performed its obligations under the contract, and defendant failed to property pay the entire balance due.

On March 13, 2018, plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement of Entire Case, along with a Stipulation for Entry of Judgment.

On April 11, 2018, plaintiff filed a Request for Dismissal of the action without prejudice, which states, “WITH COURT RETAINING JURISDICTION PURSUANT TO CCP 664.6.” The dismissal was entered as requested by the clerk the same date.

ANALYSIS:

CCP § 664.6 provides, in pertinent part:

“If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside the presence of the court...for settlement of the case,…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.”

In this case, the parties entered into a written Stipulation for Entry of Judgment signed by the parties outside of the presence of the court. [Ex. 1]. The file shows the matter was dismissed pursuant to plaintiff’s Request for Dismissal on April 11, 2018, but prior to the entry of dismissal, on March 13, 2018, plaintiff had filed with the court the Stipulation, which was signed by the parties, and expressly requested that the court retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement until performance in full, providing:

“All Parties agree that the court shall retain jurisdiction over this matter and over each of the Parties hereto pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 664.6 in order that the terms of this Stipulation may be enforced.”

[Ex. 1 ¶ 10].

This is sufficient to establish the court’s jurisdiction to summarily enforce the settlement as requested by the parties. As the Second District noted in Mesa RHF Partners, L.P. v. City of Los Angeles (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 913, 918:

“In this case, the parties could have easily invoked section 664.6 by filing a stipulation and proposed order either attaching a copy of the settlement agreement and requesting that the trial court retain jurisdiction under section 664.6 or a stipulation and proposed order signed by the parties noting the settlement and requesting that the trial court retain jurisdiction under section 664.6.”

The parties here filed the stipulation with the request to retain jurisdiction prior to the entry of dismissal.

The Second District in Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal. App.4th 793 held that a trial court may on a section 664.6 motion receive evidence, determine disputed facts and enter the terms of a settlement agreement as a judgment, but may not create the material terms of a settlement as opposed to deciding what terms the parties themselves agreed to. Weddington, at 810. See also Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial, 12:975-979.2. The trial court’s determination with respect to interpretation of the settlement agreement will not be disturbed on appeal if supported by substantial evidence. Skulnick v. Roberts Express, Inc. (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 884, 889.

The motion presents evidence that the settlement was for plaintiff to take payment of monthly payments as agreed until the sum of $68,105.60 was paid. [Ex. 1, Stipulation ¶ 3]. The Stipulation provides that if any payments are not timely made:

“judgment shall be entered in favor of Plaintiff and against the above-named Defendant in the above-entitled action in the principal balance of $59,136.08, plus interest in the current total amount of $6,382.60, plus Court costs of $514.00, plus attorney’s fees in the sum of $2,072.72, resulting in a total stipulated judgment as of March 1, 2018, in the amount of $68,105.60, plus interest from this day forth, on the principal amount at the rate of 10% per annum.”

[Ex. 1, Stipulation ¶ 2].

The Stipulation further provides;

“The Parties stipulate that a declaration from an attorney from GABA LAW CORPORATION is sufficient to establish the date of default hereunder and the amount of monies paid hereunder, which monies shall be applied as a credit against any judgment entered.”

[Ex. 1, Stipulation ¶ 8].

The declaration from Ryan M. Arakawa of GABA establishes that defendant defaulted beginning on June 15, 2019 and has paid a total of $25,750 under the Stipulation. [Arakawa Decl. ¶¶ 5-7]. The calculations appear appropriate and according to the express terms of the Stipulation, for a total judgment now due in the sum of $48,357.35. [Arakawa Decl. ¶ 9; Ex. 1, Stipulation ¶¶ 2, 8].

This appears to provide substantial evidence upon which the court may enter judgment as requested. There is no opposition to this motion, so no challenge to this evidence. The motion is granted. The judgment is entered as requested.

RULING:

[No Opposition]

Motion for an Order Setting Aside Dismissal and Entering Judgment Pursuant to the Parties Stipulation for Entry of Judgment is GRANTED pursuant to CCP § 664.6. The court finds that parties to pending litigation stipulated to the settlement of the case in a writing signed by the parties outside the presence of the court. The dismissal entered April 11, 2018 is accordingly set aside and judgment is therefore entered in favor of plaintiff Luxottica USA LLC in accordance with the Stipulation for Entry of Judgment Pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 664.6, filed with the court on March 13, 2018.