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, Burbank Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is RALPH C. HOFER. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.
Disposed - Dismissed
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Los Angeles, California
RALPH C. HOFER
LUXXOTICA USA LLC
AGA & TITAN CO.
AGA & TITAN INC.
GABA LAW CORPORATION
7/18/2017: Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case
7/18/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: COMPLAINT FILED-SUMMONS ISSUED
10/16/2017: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER ENTERED: 2017-10-16 00:00:00
10/24/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: PROOF-SERVICE/SUMMONS
11/27/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: DECLARATION
11/30/2017: Case Management Statement
12/18/2017: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER ENTERED: 2017-12-18 00:00:00
1/3/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: NOTICE OF HEARING
3/13/2018: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER ENTERED: 2018-03-13 00:00:00
3/13/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT
4/11/2018: Request for Dismissal
9/27/2018: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information
9/27/2018: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information -
10/28/2019: Proof of Service by Mail
12/6/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR ORDER SETTING ASIDE DISMISSAL AND ENTER...)
12/16/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF RULING AFTER MOTION AND NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
2/13/2020: Judgment - JUDGMENT JUDGMENT BY COURT BY STIPULATION
DocketJudgment (Judgment by Court by Stipulation); Filed by LUXXOTICA USA LLC (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice (of Ruling After Motion and Notice of Entry of Judgment); Filed by LUXXOTICA USA LLC (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department D; Hearing on Motion for Order (Setting Aside Dismissal and Entering Judgment pursuant to the Parties' Stipulation for Entry of Judgment filed on behalf of Plaintiff Luxotica USA, LLC) - Held - Motion GrantedRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Order Setting Aside Dismissal and Enter...)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketMotion to Set Aside/Vacate Dismissal; Filed by LUXXOTICA USA LLC (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by LUXXOTICA USA LLC (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Change of Address or Other Contact InformationRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by LUXXOTICA USA LLC (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Change of Address (OR OTHER CONTACT INFORMATION ); Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department D; Unknown Event Type - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by CourtRead MoreRead Less
DocketDeclaration (OF RUDY GABA, JR. IN OPPOSITION TO OSC HEARING ); Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
DocketDeclaration; Filed by LUXXOTICA USA LLC (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice (OF OSC)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Case Management ConferenceRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil CaseRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by nullRead MoreRead Less
DocketSummons FiledRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint filed-Summons IssuedRead MoreRead Less
DocketSummons; Filed by nullRead MoreRead Less
DocketCivil Case Cover SheetRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: EC067016 Hearing Date: December 06, 2019 Dept: NCD
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)
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.
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
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.
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.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases