This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 12/27/2021 at 00:17:23 (UTC).

OMAR GARA, ET AL. VS SOUTH BAY N PROPERTIES, LLC, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 07/28/2020 OMAR GARA filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against SOUTH BAY N PROPERTIES, LLC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is YOLANDA OROZCO. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******8351

  • Filing Date:

    07/28/2020

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

YOLANDA OROZCO

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

GARA OMAR

GARA AYOUB

Defendants

SOUTH BAY N PROPERTIES LLC FDBA NISSAN OF SOUTH BAY

NISSAN NORTH AMERICA INC.

CAPITAL ONE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

NISSAN OF TORRANCE LLC

HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

BABBITT GREGORY T.

COOK MICHELLE A.

Defendant Attorneys

LEONARD JAMES P. II

RUBIN STACY H.

SHIELDS ROBERT ALLEN

HODGE LEIGH ANNE

BRANDT STACIE L.

LEONARD JAMES P II

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT BY PLAINTIFFS)

10/25/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT BY PLAINTIFFS)

Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT

10/18/2021: Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT

Declaration - DECLARATION OF MICHELLE A. COOK IN SUPPORT OF REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT

10/18/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION OF MICHELLE A. COOK IN SUPPORT OF REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT

Opposition - OPPOSITION DEFENDANT NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT

10/12/2021: Opposition - OPPOSITION DEFENDANT NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF AYOUB GARA IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT

9/22/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF AYOUB GARA IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT

Notice of Motion - NOTICE OF MOTION PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT

9/22/2021: Notice of Motion - NOTICE OF MOTION PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT

Memorandum of Points & Authorities

9/22/2021: Memorandum of Points & Authorities

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF MICHELLE A. COOK IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT

9/22/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF MICHELLE A. COOK IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

1/25/2021: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Case Management Statement

11/12/2020: Case Management Statement

Case Management Statement

11/12/2020: Case Management Statement

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

11/12/2020: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

Case Management Statement

11/17/2020: Case Management Statement

Case Management Statement

11/20/2020: Case Management Statement

Answer

12/2/2020: Answer

Case Management Order

12/2/2020: Case Management Order

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE)

12/2/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR ADDENDUM TO CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE ORDER

12/2/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR ADDENDUM TO CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE ORDER

34 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/07/2022
  • Hearing03/07/2022 at 10:00 AM in Department 31 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/22/2022
  • Hearing02/22/2022 at 09:00 AM in Department 31 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/25/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 31, Yolanda Orozco, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Enforce Settlement (by Plaintiffs) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/25/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Enforce Settlement by Plaintiffs)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/18/2021
  • DocketDeclaration (OF MICHELLE A. COOK IN SUPPORT OF REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT -[Res ID: _1786]); Filed by Omar Gara (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/18/2021
  • DocketReply (In Support of Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Support of Motion To Enforce Settlement -[Res ID: _1786]); Filed by Omar Gara (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/12/2021
  • DocketOpposition (of Defendant Nissan North America, Inc. To Plaintiff's Motion To Enforce Settlement -[Res ID: _1786]); Filed by Nissan North America, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/22/2021
  • DocketNotice of Motion (AND MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT BY PLAINTIFFS -[Res ID: _1786]); Filed by Omar Gara (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/22/2021
  • DocketMemorandum of Points & Authorities (by Plaintiffs in Support of Motion to Enforce Settlement -[Res ID: _1786]); Filed by Omar Gara (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/22/2021
  • DocketDeclaration (OF MICHELLE A. COOK IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT -[Res ID: _1786]); Filed by Omar Gara (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
30 More Docket Entries
  • 08/28/2020
  • DocketNotice of Entry of Dismissal and Proof of Service; Filed by Omar Gara (Plaintiff); Ayoub Gara (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/11/2020
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal (as to Defendant Nissan of Torrance, LLC); Filed by Omar Gara (Plaintiff); Ayoub Gara (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/29/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2020
  • DocketAffidavit (Ayoub Gara's Affidavit of Venue); Filed by Omar Gara (Plaintiff); Ayoub Gara (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2020
  • DocketAffidavit (Omar Gara's Affidavit of Venue); Filed by Omar Gara (Plaintiff); Ayoub Gara (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Omar Gara (Plaintiff); Ayoub Gara (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2020
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by Omar Gara (Plaintiff); Ayoub Gara (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Omar Gara (Plaintiff); Ayoub Gara (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2020
  • DocketStatement of Damages (Personal Injury or Wrongful Death); Filed by Omar Gara (Plaintiff); Ayoub Gara (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b"

Case Number: 20STCV28351 Hearing Date: October 25, 2021 Dept: 31

MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENTIS GRANTED

\r\n\r\n

Background

\r\n\r\n

On August 28, 2020, Plaintiffs\r\nOmar Gara and Ayoub Gara (“Plaintiffs”) filed the instant action against\r\nDefendants South Bay N Properties, LLC, fdba Nissan of South Bay; Nissan of\r\nTorrance, LLC; Capital One, National Association; Hartford Fire Insurance\r\nCompany; Nissan North America, Inc., and Does 1 through 50. On November 2,\r\n2020, Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). The FAC asserts\r\ncauses of action for:

\r\n\r\n

1. \r\nViolations of Consumers Legal\r\nRemedies Act Against Dealers and Holder;

\r\n\r\n

2. \r\nViolations of Consumers Legal\r\nRemedies Act Against Nissan;

\r\n\r\n

3. \r\nBreach of Implied Warranty of\r\nMerchantability in Violation of Song-Beverly Act Against Dealers and Holder;

\r\n\r\n

4. \r\nFailure to Promptly Replace or Make\r\nRestitution in Violation of Song-Beverly Act Against Nissan;

\r\n\r\n

5. \r\nFailure to Repair in Violation of\r\nSong-Beverly Act Against Nissan;

\r\n\r\n

6. \r\nViolations of Rosenthal Fair Debt\r\nCollection Practices Act Against Holder;

\r\n\r\n

7. \r\nViolations of Consumer Credit\r\nReporting Agencies Act Against Holder;

\r\n\r\n

8. \r\nViolations of Unfair Competition Law\r\nAgainst Dealers and Holder;

\r\n\r\n

9. \r\nViolations of Unfair Competition Law\r\nAgainst Holder;

\r\n\r\n

10. \r\nViolations of Unfair Competition Law\r\nAgainst Nissan;

\r\n\r\n

11. \r\nFraudulent Misrepresentation Against\r\nDealers and Holder;

\r\n\r\n

12. \r\nNegligent Misrepresentation Against\r\nDealers and Holder; and

\r\n\r\n

13. \r\nCause of Action Under Vehicle Code\r\nSection 11711 against Bond Company

\r\n\r\n

On August 11, 2020, Defendant Nissan\r\nof Torrance, LLC was dismissed.

\r\n\r\n

On January 25, 2021, default was\r\nentered as to Defendant South Bay N Properties, LLC.

\r\n\r\n

On\r\nJuly 12, 2021, Plaintiffs entered into a Settlement Agreement and Release of\r\nAll Claims (“Settlement Agreement”) with Defendants Nissan North America, Inc.\r\n(“NNA”) and Capital One Auto Finance, a Division of Capital One, N.A. (“Capital\r\nOne”).

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiffs now move under Code of\r\nCivil Procedure section 664.6 for an order entering judgment pursuant to the\r\nterms of the Settlement Agreement and awarding attorney fees and costs in the amount\r\nof $3,431.05

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Legal Standard

\r\n\r\n

California Code of Civil Procedure\r\nsection 664.6 provides that

\r\n\r\n

[i]f\r\nthe parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties\r\noutside the presence of the court or orally before the court, for settlement of\r\nthe case, or part thereof, the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant\r\nto the terms of the settlement. If\r\nrequested by the parties, the court may retain jurisdiction over the parties to\r\nenforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the\r\nsettlement.

\r\n\r\n

(Code Civ. Proc. § 664.6.)

\r\n\r\n

“Section 664.6 was enacted to\r\nprovide a summary procedure for specifically enforcing a settlement contract\r\nwithout the need for a new lawsuit.” (Chan v. Lund (2010) 188\r\nCal.App.4th 1159, 1165-66 [quoting Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick\r\n(1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 809-10].)

\r\n\r\n

Discussion

\r\n\r\n

Jurisdiction

\r\n\r\n

This action has not yet been\r\ndismissed. Accordingly, the Court finds that it has jurisdiction to enforce the\r\nexecuted Settlement Agreement.

\r\n\r\n

Entry\r\nof Judgment Pursuant to Settlement Agreement

\r\n\r\n

“A settlement agreement is\r\ninterpreted according to the same principles as any other written agreement. [Citation.]\r\nIt must be interpreted to give effect to the mutual intent of the parties as it\r\nexisted at the time, insofar as that intent can be ascertained and is lawful. [Citations.]\r\nIf the language of the agreement is clear and explicit and does not involve an\r\nabsurdity, determination of the mutual intent of the parties and interpretation\r\nof the contract is to be based on the language of the agreement alone. [Citations.]

\r\n\r\n

While the court may interpret\r\nthe terms of the parties' settlement agreement, “nothing in section 664.6\r\nauthorizes a judge to create the material terms of a settlement, as opposed to\r\ndeciding what terms the parties themselves have previously agreed upon.\r\n[Citations.]” (Leeman v. Adams Extract\r\n& Spice, LLC (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 1367, 1374.)

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiffs move the Court to enter\r\njudgment pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement and award attorney fees and costs\r\nin the amount of $3,431.05.

\r\n\r\n

According to the terms of the\r\nSettlement Agreement, the parties agreed to the following:

\r\n\r\n

1. Within\r\n25 business days after Plaintiffs sign the Settlement Agreement, NNA will tow\r\nthe subject Vehicle to a location of NNA’s choosing and Plaintiffs will\r\ntransfer their interest in the Vehicle to NNA;

\r\n\r\n

2. Within\r\n5 business days after NNA’s acceptance of the Vehicle, NNA will (1) pay\r\nPlaintiffs $16,343.56 plus $16,000 for attorney fees and costs; and (2) pay off\r\nthe balanced owed to Capital One;

\r\n\r\n

3. Within\r\n14 business days after NNA pays off Capital One, Capital One will delete the\r\ntradeline from Omar Gara’s credit report;

\r\n\r\n

4. Within\r\n10 business days after notice of the amount due, NNA will reimburse Plaintiffs\r\nfor any payments made on the Vehicle between May 1, 2021, and when the Vehicle\r\nwas paid off;

\r\n\r\n

5. Within\r\n5 business days after completion of the above obligations, Plaintiffs shall\r\ndismiss the action with prejudice.

\r\n\r\n

(Cook Decl. ¶¶ 12, 19, Exh. 1.)

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiffs argue that NNA has\r\nbreached the terms the terms of the Settlement Agreement because it has failed\r\nto arrange for the pickup of the Vehicle, which should have been completed by\r\nAugust 16, 2021. (Cook Decl., ¶¶ 20-30.)

\r\n\r\n

In opposition, NNA does not\r\ndispute that it has breached the Settlement Agreement by failing to retrieve\r\nthe Vehicle. Instead, NNA states:

\r\n\r\n

Unfortunately, due to\r\ncircumstances beyond Nissan’s control, a ransomware attack caused a network\r\nshut down at Nissan’s transfer agent, which receives and processes Nissan’s\r\nsettlements. Counsel for Nissan has received a check; however, it is the\r\nincorrect amount believed to be due to the ransomware attack. The network delay\r\ncoupled with various delays setting up surrenders based on COVID-19 issues\r\ncaused circumstances beyond Nissan’s control. Nissan is working diligently and\r\nwill have the checks processed and sent prior to the hearing of the instant\r\nmotion.

\r\n\r\n

In reply, Plaintiffs argue the\r\nreason for NNA’s delay is irrelevant to whether the Court should enter judgment\r\npursuant to the Settlement Agreement, which is undisputedly enforceable.

\r\n\r\n

Because NNA does not dispute that it has\r\nbreached the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Court finds that Plaintiffs\r\nare entitled to entry of judgment pursuant to the terms of the Settlement\r\nAgreement. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS\r\nPlaintiffs’ motion to enforce settlement.

\r\n\r\n

Attorney Fees

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

“Civil Code section 1717, subdivision (a), provides in\r\nrelevant part as follows: ‘In any action on a contract, where the contract\r\nspecifically provides that attorney's fees and costs, which are incurred to\r\nenforce that contract, shall be awarded either to one of the parties or to the\r\nprevailing party, then the party who is determined to be the party prevailing\r\non the contract, whether he or she is the party specified in the contract or\r\nnot, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees in addition to other\r\ncosts. [¶] ... [¶] Reasonable attorney's fees shall be fixed by the court,\r\nand shall be an element of the costs of suit.’” (PLCM Grp.\r\nv. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal. 4th 1084, 1090.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

“A trial court assessing attorney fees begins with a\r\ntouchstone or lodestar figure, based on the ‘careful compilation of the time\r\nspent and reasonable hourly compensation of each attorney . . . involved\r\nin the presentation of the case.” (Christian Research Institute\r\nv. Alnor (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1321.) The court\r\n“need not simply award the sum requested. To the contrary, ascertaining\r\nthe fee amount is left to the trial court's sound discretion.” (Id.) \r\n“The reasonableness of attorney fees is within the discretion of the trial\r\ncourt, to be determined from a consideration of such factors as the nature of\r\nthe litigation, the complexity of the issues, the experience and expertise of\r\ncounsel and the amount of time involved. The court may also consider\r\nwhether the amount requested is based upon unnecessary or duplicative\r\nwork.” (Wilkerson v. Sullivan (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 443,\r\n448.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Here, the Settlement Agreement provides as follows:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

17. ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND\r\nCOSTS

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

In the event of\r\nlitigation between the Parties with respect to a breach of this Agreement or\r\nany provision hereof, the prevailing Party shall be entitled to recover from\r\nthe other Party their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiffs seek fees in the amount of $3,431.05 consisting of 2.1 hours communicating with the parties,\r\n0.5 hours conferring with Defendants’ counsel concerning Defendants’ delay, 5.5\r\nhours drafting the moving papers, and an anticipated 2 hours reviewing\r\nDefendants’ opposition, drafting a reply brief, and appearing for the hearing\r\nfor this motion at a rate of $545 per hour. Plaintiffs also seek $70.05 in\r\ncosts consisting of filing fees.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The Court finds that Plaintiffs are the prevailing party\r\nand thus are entitled to attorney fees under Paragraph 17 of the Settlement\r\nAgreement. NNA states in opposition that it “agrees to pay the requested\r\n$3,431.05.” Therefore, the Court will award\r\nthat amount in attorney fees.

\r\n\r\n

Conclusion

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiffs’ motion to enforce the\r\nsettlement is GRANTED. The Court enters judgment pursuant to the terms of the\r\nSettlement Agreement and awards Plaintiffs attorney fees and costs in the\r\namount of $3,431.05.

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiffs\r\nshall give notice.

\r\n\r\n

The\r\nparties are strongly encouraged to attend all scheduled hearings virtually or\r\nby audio. Effective July 20, 2020, all matters will be scheduled virtually\r\nand/or with audio through the Court’s LACourtConnect technology. The parties\r\nare strongly encouraged to use LACourtConnect for all their matters. All masking\r\nprotocols will be observed at the Courthouse and in the courtrooms.

\r\n\r\n

"
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where SOUTH BAY N PROPERTIES LLC DBA NISSAN OF SOUTH BAY DBA NISSAN OF TORRANCE is a litigant

Latest cases where NISSAN OF TORRANCE is a litigant

Latest cases where HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY is a litigant

Latest cases where CAPITAL ONE N.A. is a litigant