On 10/06/2017 MICHAEL ABKARIAN filed a Labor - Wrongful Termination lawsuit against AW COLLISION SCI. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are HOLLY E. KENDIG and ELAINE LU. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
HOLLY E. KENDIG
DOES 1 TO 50
AW COLLISION SCI
SCI AW COLLISION
BOYAJIAN ERIC A. ESQ.
HENNIG ROB ESQ.
HENNIG ROBERT ALAN ESQ.
BOYAJIAN ERIC ALBERT ESQ.
RUIZ BRANDON K
BERLINER COHEN LLP
WILSON DENNIS P. ESQ.
HUNT DANIEL P.
WHITE ALESHIA MAE
LONG CHRISTINE HEATHER
WILSON DENNIS PATRICK ESQ.
5/14/2018: NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER ON STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER - CONFIDENTIAL AND HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL DESIGNATIONS
6/1/2018: SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA TO PASADENA HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, LTD DBA HUNTINGTON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL AND OLIVE VIEW/UCLA MEDICAL CENTER AND FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $
6/1/2018: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA TO PASADENA HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, LTD DBA HUNUNGTON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL AND OLIVE VIEW/UCLA MEDICAL CENTER AND FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,917.50; ETC
6/8/2018: Minute Order
7/11/2018: DEFENDANT JUAN MARTINEZ' NOTICE OF JOINDER TO DEFENDANT'S AW COLLISION SC1'S MOTION RE: OBJECTION AND OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF MICHAEL ABKARIAN'S PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE
7/16/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE RE: COURT'S JULY 9, 2018 ORDER; ETC.
8/28/2018: DEFENDANT AW COLLISION SC1'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA TO PASEDENA HOSPITAL, LTD DBA HUNTINGTON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL AND OLIVE VIEW/UCLA MEDICAL
9/4/2018: PLAINTIFF?S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA TO PASADENA HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, LTD DBA HUNTINGTON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL AM) OLIVE VIEW/UCLA MEDICAL CENTER AND FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2
11/9/2018: Proof of Service by Mail
12/7/2018: Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice
12/14/2018: Proof of Service by Mail
2/21/2019: Proof of Service by Mail
5/3/2019: Proof of Service by Mail
1/25/2018: Proof of Service
11/20/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS
11/20/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS
11/20/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS
10/6/2017: COMPLAINT FOR: 1. UNPAID OVERTIME WAGES; ETC
at 10:04 AM in Department 26, Elaine Lu, Presiding; Non-Appearance Case ReviewRead MoreRead Less
Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Non-Appearance Case Review) of 05/06/2019); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Non-Appearance Case Review)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Notice of Settlement; Filed by MICHAEL ABKARIAN (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Proof of Service by Mail; Filed by MICHAEL ABKARIAN (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 26, Elaine Lu, Presiding; Informal Discovery Conference (IDC)Read MoreRead Less
Notice (of Entry of Order Re: Defendant AW Collision SC1's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories); Filed by AW COLLISION SCI (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 26, Elaine Lu, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - HeldRead MoreRead Less
Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro TemporeRead MoreRead Less
Order (Re: Defendant AW Collision SCI's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBERS OF THE LAW OFFICES OF ERIC A. BOYAJIANRead MoreRead Less
at 3:00 PM in Department 42; (Affidavit of Prejudice; Court makes order) -Read MoreRead Less
Minute order entered: 2017-10-25 00:00:00; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Minute OrderRead MoreRead Less
PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO JUDICIAL OFFICER (CODE CIV. PROC 170.6)Read MoreRead Less
Challenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6); Filed by MICHAEL ABKARIAN (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by MICHAEL ABKARIAN (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
COMPLAINT FOR: 1. UNPAID OVERTIME WAGES; ETCRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC678654 Hearing Date: November 25, 2019 Dept: 26
AW COLLISION SCI, et al.,
Case No.: BC678654 [Related to BC675725]
Hearing Date: November 25, 2019
[TENTATIVE] order RE:
Plaintiff michael abkarian’s Motion for entry of judgment on settlement pursuant to C.C.P. §664.6
On October 6, 2017, Plaintiff Michael Abkarian (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants AW Collision SCI, Joseph Ibrahim, and Juan Martinez (collectively “Defendants”), asserting causes of action for unpaid overtime wages, meal period violations, rest period violations, failure to reimburse necessary business expenses, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to provide wages due upon discharge, harassment, failure to prevent discrimination and harassment, employment discrimination, wrongful constructive discharge, retaliation, and unfair business practices.
On November 29, 2017, Defendant AW Collision SCI filed an answer to the complaint.
On December 16, 2017, Defendant Joseph Ibrahim filed an answer to the complaint.
On December 18, 2017, Defendant Juan Martinez filed an answer to the complaint.
On May 6, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement of the Entire Case.
On October 11, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for entry of judgment on settlement against defendant AW Collision SCI (“Defendant AW”), pursuant to C.C.P. §664.6, along with an application to file portions of the motion under seal. The motion was noticed for hearing on May 27, 2020.
On October 23, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff’s ex parte application and advanced the hearing on the motion to enforce settlement and application to file under seal to November 25, 2019.
On November 12, 2019, Defendant AW filed an opposition to the motion. On November 18, 2019, Plaintiff filed a reply. On November 21, 2019, Defendant AW filed a surreply.
C.C.P. §664.6 provides that “[i]f 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.” In hearing a C.C.P. §664.6 motion, the trial court may receive evidence, determine disputed facts, and enter terms of a settlement agreement as a judgment. (Bowers v. Raymond J. Lucia Companies, Inc. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 724, 732.) The Court may also receive oral testimony in addition to declarations. (Kohn v. Jaymar-Ruby, Inc. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1530, 1533.) The Court may interpret the terms and conditions to settlement (Fiore v. Alvord (1985) 182 Cal.App.3d 561, 566), but the Court may not create material terms of a settlement, as opposed to deciding what terms the parties themselves have previously agreed upon (Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 810).
Strict compliance with the statutory requirements is necessary before a court can enforce a settlement agreement under this statute. (Sully-Miller Contracting Co. v. Gledson/Cashman Construction, Inc. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 30, 37.) The party seeking to enforce a settlement “must first establish the agreement at issue was set forth ‘in a writing signed by the parties’ (§ 664.6) or was made orally before the court. [Citation.]” (Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 299, 304.)
The settlement must include the signatures of the parties seeking to enforce the agreement, and against whom enforcement is sought. (J.B.B. Investment Partners, Ltd. v. Fair (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 974, 985.) “Parties” under CCP § 664.6 means the litigants themselves, and not their attorneys, must expressly consent to settlement. (Levy v. Superior Court (1995) 10 Cal.4th 578, 586 [“we conclude that the term ‘parties’ as used in section 664.6…means the litigants themselves, and does not include their attorneys of record”].)
Plaintiff moves for an order entering judgment against Defendant AW Collision SCI (“Defendant AW”) based on the parties’ written and signed settlement agreement, pursuant to C.C.P. §664.6.
Application to File Under Seal
As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff’s application to file portions of the instant motion under seal is denied.
The Court may order a record sealed if it finds that (1) an overriding interest exists that overcomes the right of public access to the record; (2) the overriding interest supports sealing the record; (3) a substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed; (4) the request is narrowly tailored; and (5) no less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d).)
Plaintiff seeks to seal all references to the dollar amounts of the settlement payments agreed upon by the parties in their settlement agreement. (Application, pg. 2.) However, Plaintiff’s application is not accompanied by a declaration containing facts sufficient to justify the sealing. (See CRC 2.550(d) and 2.551(b)(1).) Plaintiff only filed the application to comply with the Stipulation and Protective Order. (Declaration of Zargarian ¶2; Exhibit 1.) (Application, pg. 3.) However, the “court must not permit a record to be filed under seal based solely on the agreement or stipulation of the parties.” (CRC 2.551(a).) Moreover, Plaintiff essentially concedes that the application to seal is unsupported. The application provides, in pertinent part, as follows: “Plaintiff does not believe the factors listed in Rule 2.550 are met here, as any judgment entered by this Court enforcing the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement would presumably reference the dollar amounts of the settlement payments agreed to by the parties” and, as such, “this information will ultimately become available in the public record, whether or not this application to seal is granted.” (Application, pg. 3.) Nor does Defendant AW’s surreply establish the necessary factors under Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d).
Thus, Plaintiff’s application to file portions of the instant motion under seal is denied. Plaintiff is ordered to publicly file its unredacted motion to enforce settlement unless prior to the hearing on this motion Defendant files and serves supplemental briefing and evidence from which the Court may find the necessary factors under Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d).
Motion to Enforce Settlement
Plaintiff is entitled to an order, pursuant to C.C.P. §664.6, entering judgment against Defendant AW in accordance with the terms of terms of the parties’ settlement agreement. Plaintiff has submitted evidence that the parties entered into a written settlement agreement on April 26, 2019. (Declaration of Boyajian ¶2; Exhibit A.) The settlement agreement is signed by Plaintiff and Defendant AW (via Ben Lamond). (Declaration of Boyajian ¶2; Exhibit A.) Defendants agreed to pay $160,000.00 in settlement funds after receipt of Plaintiff’s executed agreement. (Declaration of Boyajian ¶2; Exhibit A.) Per the agreement, the settlement would be paid within 90 days. The parties agreed $5,000.00 of the settlement funds would be characterized as wages and $155,000.00 of the settlement funds would be paid to Plaintiff’s attorney in the form of a check payable to Law Offices of Eric Boyajian Lawyer Trust Account. (Declaration of Boyajian ¶2; Exhibit A.) The settlement agreement contains all material terms. (Declaration of Boyajian ¶2; Exhibit A.) Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement of Entire Case on May 3, 2019. (Declaration of Boyajian ¶3; Exhibit B.) Defendant AW has not paid the settlement funds. (Declaration of Boyajian ¶¶4-10; Exhibits C-H.)
In opposition, Defendant AW represents it “is not intentionally avoiding the payment of the settlement in this case,” “Plaintiff’s counsel is aware of Defendant’s financial situation and the need to secure funding, which required a set total dollar amount and a payment plan in the class action matter,” and Plaintiff filed an unnecessary motion to increase attorneys’ fees. (Opposition, pg. 3.) However, Defendant AW’s motion is not supported by admissible evidence. Defendant AW does not provide the Court with a declaration explaining why the settlement funds have not been timely paid, identifying the efforts made by Defendant AW, if any, to secure funding for payment of the settlement, and providing a timeline for payment of the settlement funds. Nor does Defendant AW point the Court to any provision within the settlement agreement that establish a contingency for the settlement payments or that justify a delay of payment beyond 90 days.
The opposition states that it “is the expectation of Defense counsel that [delivery of the funds] will be completed before the time for hearing on this motion.” (Opposition, pg. 3.) However, Defendant has produced no evidence of such payment prior to the hearing on this motion. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is granted.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Plaintiff’s application to file portions of the motion for entry of judgment on settlement pursuant to C.C.P. §664.6 under seal is denied.
Plaintiff’s motion for entry of judgment on settlement pursuant to C.C.P. §664.6 is granted. Judgment shall be entered in favor of Plaintiff Michael Abkarian and against defendant AW Collision SCI in the amount of $160,000.
Plaintiff is ordered to provide notice of this order, and file proof of service of such within five days.
DATED: November 25, 2019 ___________________________
Judge of the Superior Court
 Defendant did not seek leave to file a surreply. Nonetheless, the Court will, in its discretion, consider all briefing, including Defendant’s surreply.