This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/03/2019 at 00:44:17 (UTC).

MUHAMMAD KHER ALMULHEM VS. MARTHA KELLY KEYS REVOCABLE TRUST

Case Summary

On 03/08/2018 a Property - Other Real Property case was filed by MUHAMMAD KHER ALMULHEM against MARTHA KELLY KEYS REVOCABLE TRUST in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Compton Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9076

  • Filing Date:

    03/08/2018

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Real Property

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Compton Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

MAURICE A. LEITER

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Cross Defendants

ALMULHEM MUHAMMAD KHER

ALM TRUCKING COMPANY

Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

KEYS MAURICE

MARTHA KELLY KEYS REVOCABLE TRUST

DOES 1-20

 

Court Documents

Legacy Document

4/24/2018: Legacy Document

Legacy Document

6/5/2018: Legacy Document

Notice

7/9/2018: Notice

Association of Attorney

7/9/2018: Association of Attorney

Answer

7/13/2018: Answer

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

8/13/2018: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Proof of Service by Mail

8/15/2018: Proof of Service by Mail

Case Management Statement

8/15/2018: Case Management Statement

Minute Order

8/22/2018: Minute Order

Informal Discovery Conference

1/7/2019: Informal Discovery Conference

Informal Discovery Conference

1/7/2019: Informal Discovery Conference

Witness List

4/8/2019: Witness List

Jury Instructions

4/12/2019: Jury Instructions

Brief

4/12/2019: Brief

Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

5/3/2019: Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

Exhibit List

5/10/2019: Exhibit List

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

5/13/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Stipulation for Judgment

6/3/2019: Stipulation for Judgment

46 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/07/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department A, Maurice A. Leiter, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: (Dismissal pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1385(b) and (c)) - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2019
  • Proof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by MARTHA KELLY KEYS REVOCABLE TRUST (Defendant); MAURICE KEYS (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2019
  • Stipulation for Judgment; Filed by MUHAMMAD KHER ALMULHEM (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/31/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department A, Maurice A. Leiter, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: (Dismissal pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1385(b) and (c)) - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2019
  • Notice of Rejection - Pleadings; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/13/2019
  • at 09:30 AM in Department A, Maurice A. Leiter, Presiding; Non-Jury Trial - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/13/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Non-Jury Trial)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/13/2019
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by MAURICE KEYS (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2019
  • Notice (of Errata in Amended Respondent's Exhibit List); Filed by MAURICE KEYS (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2019
  • Exhibit List; Filed by MAURICE KEYS (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
52 More Docket Entries
  • 06/12/2018
  • Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/12/2018
  • Request to Waive Court Fees; Filed by MAURICE KEYS (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2018
  • Default Entered; Filed by MUHAMMAD KHER ALMULHEM (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2018
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by MUHAMMAD KHER ALMULHEM (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/16/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department A; (Case Ordered Reassigned; Case Reassigned for all purposes) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/10/2018
  • Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2018
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2018
  • Summons; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by MUHAMMAD KHER ALMULHEM (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2018
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by MUHAMMAD KHER ALMULHEM (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: TC029076    Hearing Date: October 29, 2019    Dept: A

# 10. Muhammad Almulhem v. Martha Kelly Keys Revocable Trust, et al.

Case No.: TC029076

Matter on calendar for: Motion to Enforce Settlement

Tentative ruling:

  1. Background

    The parties in this action agreed to a settlement on June 3, 2019, wherein Defendant Maurice Keys was to vacate the property at 425 E. Cassidy St., Carson, CA 90746 within 45 days of the agreement. Plaintiff Muhammad Almulhem was to furnish $195,000 within the same 45 day period (July 18, 2019). Defendant surrendered possession of the property, but Plaintiff failed to pay the $195,000.

    Defendant Keys now moves to enforce the settlement agreement, specifically for $195,000 plus $5,502.74 in interest and $3,254 in attorneys’ fees, or $203,756.74 in total.

  2. Standard

Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6 “explicitly provides statutory authorization for the entry of judgment upon a stipulated settlement by means of a noticed motion.” (Casa de Valley View Owner’s Assn. v. Stevenson (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 1182, 1189.) The Court may determine the motion upon declarations alone in ruling. (Corkland v. Boscoe (1984) 156 Cal.App.3rd 989, 994) Where the settlement is ambiguous, the Court is required to consider extrinsic evidence of the parties’ intent. (Steller v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 175, 183).

  1. Analysis

    Plaintiff sought to pay the $195,000 by refinancing the property once Defendant surrendered it. However, a trust deed was found in the title history that delayed the loan. (Decl. Elbanna, ¶¶ 1–3.) Research by the title company revealed the deed benefited a bail bondsman who supplied bail for Defendant in 1995. (Ibid.) It was determined that the note had been paid off. (Ibid.) Plaintiff sent the escrow documents to Defendant on September 19, 2019, but Defendant has not signed the documents, preventing the transfer of the $195,000. (Decl. Waddel, ¶¶ 1–3.)

    After reviewing the papers and affidavits, Plaintiff attempted to perform on September 19, 2019. An unknown encumbrance on the property, an encumbrance granted to benefit Defendant, prevented Plaintiff’s timely performance. Once the encumbrance was resolved, Plaintiff quickly attempted to perform. It is inequitable to hold Plaintiff liable for a delay which was not caused by Plaintiff.

    Additionally, paragraph 7 of the settlement agreement states:

    “Both parties are ordered to execute any documents required to effectuate the terms of this Stipulated Judgment and the failure to cooperate requiring additional Court Proceedings shall subject the non-cooperating party to reasonable attorneys fees and costs occasioned by such failure.” (Decl. Dobson, Exh. A, pg. 3.)

    The wording of this provision, a single sentence, limits the recovery of attorney’s fees to the improper refusal to execute necessary documents. As Plaintiff did not fail in this regard, the request for attorney’s fees must be denied.

  2. Ruling

    The motion to enforce the settlement agreement is denied without prejudice.

    Next dates:

    Notice: